UKVoting Statement - Ian Jackson : Complaint
jms
Is this the same Ian Jackson who has proposed the moderated cycling
group, chosen the moderators, and who will be the chief moderator?
(Oh - and whose system - chiark - (on which the moderation system will
be run) cannot accept messages from Microsoft systems (eg from
hotmail, and live email addresses) because of a problem which he
refuses to correct)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UKVoting Statement - Ian Jackson
UKVoting has received a high number of complaints about the selection
of Ian Jackson as a votetaker. These complaints can be split into two
camps
i) objections to his proposals posted in uk.net.news.management;
ii) objections to him as a votetaker based on his attitude during the
discussion of those proposals.
Within the debate which has taken place within uk.net.news.management
the following points need to be noted:
1) the defence of such heavily criticised proposals has damaged the
name of UKVoting.
2) UKVoting operates as a independent organisation with the ability to
control its own procedures, as long as they met the voting guidelines.
And in the belief of UKVoting this position should be able to continue
whilst we have the support of the majority of the uk.* community.
3) UKVoting operates as a body of consensus through discussion and
debate, with the Co-Ordinator having to make a final decision on the
odd occasion.
4) The procedures of UKVoting have been established in their current
form now for at least 18 months, and they work fine 99% of the time.
And change should be only be implemented following discussion with
UKVoting, and if felt necessary - the uk.* community.
5) Ian Jackson lost the confidence, respect and support of the
majority of the uk.* community, Committee members , other votetakers,
and finally the UKVoting Co-Ordinator.
Following a lengthy and detailed discussion on the UKVoting mailing
list and within UNNM, and as UKVoting Co-Ordinator, I have decided
that Ian Jackson can no longer continue as a member of UKVoting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka
uk.rec.cycling.censored
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>See message below from 2000 from uk.voting.org
If this is genuine, and I have no reason to suspect that it is false,
it goes a long way to explain why Ian Jackson went to such lengths to
hand pick his own committee.
Just zis Guy, you know?
> http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/statements/notice-ukvoting-ian-jackson-200...
Stale, lame, irrelevant to the creation or otherwise of
uk.rec.cycling.trollfree, and a blatant attempt to poison the well.
Keep up the good work, you have probably done far more than Ian to
persuade waverers of the merits of and need for
uk.rec.cycling.trollfree.
--
Guy
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
> If this is genuine, and I have no reason to suspect that it is false,
> it goes a long way to explain why Ian Jackson went to such lengths to
> hand pick his own committee.
Turns out it's just more of judith's shit-stirring.
Here's a commentary fomr the original thread after the post to unnm:
"Ian holds some unusual views on how internet mail should be managed,
views
that on their own are not a problem no matter how strong the
opposition to
those views are. However Ian made it clear in his early postings that
he
intended to implement those unusual views with respect to votetaking
and
was extremely reluctant to compromise on this subject. He also
expressed
contempt for voters who did not meet a certain level of expertise and
also
contempt for voters who did meet a certain level of expertise but who
decided to configure their mail software in a certain way. "
Well, we've already seen evidence of Ian's views on mail and the
problems with interaction with systems that do not follow standards
(and as an old-time mail admin I have great sympathy with those views,
the stress put on mail infrastructures by badly-configured mail
servers is non-trivial).
In case you want to see the original discussion in context:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.net.news.management/browse_frm/thread/23431e01cf51ece0#
And you can ferret around here if you like:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.net.news.management/topics?start=1440&sa=N
Looks to me like a fight between geeks over technicalities, and the
thick end of a decade ago at that.
--
Guy
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
It doesn't matter now. Richard Ashton isn't a nice person but he does
uk.legal.moderated well almost all of the time. Allow people to be who
they are.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
jms
Well I am sorry sunshine - but I think it may be relevant.
As far as I am concerned it certainly explains many of his actions
over the proposed creation of the new group.
I hope that someone will be able to shed some light on exactly what
the problem was there - it is not clear to me
It would appear that his homegrown system may have been part of a
"problem" - as well as his arrogance and attitude then - as it is
now.
It would explain the self selection of the moderators and also his
insistence on not making chiark work for many people who will want to
email the moderators.
This was raised at an early stage by me during the discussion.
He did his damndest to ignore it and pretend everything was OK.
Others agreed with me.
In the end he actually ignored the problem and refused to correct it.
Frankly - if he really expects someone to write to Microsoft and ask
them to change their system so that emails from hotmail and live
addresses can be delivered successfully to the moderators of the
proposed group - then that in itself epitomises the problems - for
now and the future.
jms
Please explain what role Richard Ashton has in uk.legal.moderated.
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Aug 3, 1:14�pm, Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>wrote:
>> If this is genuine, and I have no reason to suspect that it is false,
>> it goes a long way to explain why Ian Jackson went to such lengths to
>> hand pick his own committee.
>
>Turns out it's just more of judith's shit-stirring.
Rubbish.
"Ian Jackson lost the confidence, respect and support of the
majority of the uk.* community, Committee members , other vote takers,
and finally the UKVoting Co-Ordinator."
To me says an awful lot - particularly in light of his actions and
attitudes during the discussion phase.
Your problem is the fact that you are so like him:
full of your own importance
think that you are a "thought-leader"on anything technical
think that you are never ever wrong.
have an attitude which encourages immediate dislike.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>Please explain what role Richard Ashton has in uk.legal.moderated.
The judith entity is more stupid than I thought.
I started low but it is getting worse.
jms
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:43:54 <3bqd75hljvv9qkliq...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>
>>Please explain what role Richard Ashton has in uk.legal.moderated.
>
>The judith entity is more stupid than I thought.
>
>I started low but it is getting worse.
Why should someone asking a question like that appear to be stupid?
I am sorry - I thought it was a reasonable question - you seemed to
be suggesting he picked the moderators when you said in answer to a
point about picking moderators - "he does uk.legal.moderated well
almost all of the time."
I had not appreciated that.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:14:29 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:43:54 <3bqd75hljvv9qkliq...@4ax.com>
>>uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>>
>>>Please explain what role Richard Ashton has in uk.legal.moderated.
>>
>>The judith entity is more stupid than I thought.
>>
>>I started low but it is getting worse.
>
>Why should someone asking a question like that appear to be stupid?
You clearly don't or won't understand how a moderated uk.* group works.
>I am sorry - I thought it was a reasonable question - you seemed to
>be suggesting he picked the moderators when you said in answer to a
>point about picking moderators - "he does uk.legal.moderated well
>almost all of the time."
Bad reading on your part. You are getting famous for that.
>I had not appreciated that.
Awww, shucks. Let me cuddle you.
No judiths were harmed while I typed this.
jms
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:26:00 <n80e75l4p4fuo66mk...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>
>>On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:14:29 +0100, "Wm..."
>><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:43:54 <3bqd75hljvv9qkliq...@4ax.com>
>>>uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>>>
>>>>Please explain what role Richard Ashton has in uk.legal.moderated.
>>>
>>>The judith entity is more stupid than I thought.
>>>
>>>I started low but it is getting worse.
>>
>>Why should someone asking a question like that appear to be stupid?
>
>You clearly don't or won't understand how a moderated uk.* group works.
Correct - and I do not pretend to - unlike you.
So stop being so fucking stupid your self and explain what you meant
by Richard's involvement in uk.legal.moderated - I am just not aware
of what it is.
He was definitely correct when he said that you were a fuckwit.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>So stop being so fucking stupid your self and explain what you meant
>by Richard's involvement in uk.legal.moderated - I am just not aware
>of what it is.
>
>He was definitely correct when he said that you were a fuckwit.
>
I find it odd that you know about RA thinking I am a bad person but
don't know about him being a good person wrt ulm
jms
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:54:57 <ps1e75lnl47eu252e...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>
>>So stop being so fucking stupid your self and explain what you meant
>>by Richard's involvement in uk.legal.moderated - I am just not aware
>>of what it is.
>>
>>He was definitely correct when he said that you were a fuckwit.
>>
>
>I find it odd that you know about RA thinking I am a bad person but
>don't know about him being a good person wrt ulm
All right - enough.
It was *you* who told us he thought you were a fuckwit.
You have obvioulsy made a mistake re ulm - so FOAD if you cannot
answer the simple question.
Ian Jackson
Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:41:59 +0100, jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>See message below from 2000 from uk.voting.org
>
>If this is genuine, and I have no reason to suspect that it is false,
Yes, this did happen. I was having a bad patch at the time (amongst
other things, I'd recently been dumped by a long-term partner) and I
should have recognised and accommodated others' views more quickly.
>it goes a long way to explain why Ian Jackson went to such lengths to
>hand pick his own committee.
Do I read this to mean that you think I selected the moderators based
on their views on _spamfiltering_ ?? Because I'm still nursing a
grudge from losing a flamewar nine years ago ?? That's surely taking
paranoia too far. For all but one of the moderators I had no idea
what their views on spamfiltering were! [1]
Anyway, this is one reason I very much want these kind of decisions
(about spamfiltering and so forth) to be taken by the moderation panel
as a whole. Even though the conventional wisdom on email filtering
have come a lot closer to my own view in the past decade, I'm still
rather to one side of the median opinion.
And of course I don't want to have that flamewar again given how much
of a fool of myself I made last time.
[1] I happen to have discussed spamfiltering with one of the
moderators in the past but that didn't play any part in my
decisionmaking. Neither did I investigate the opinions on this
subject of any of the proposed moderators; I didn't even look to see
whether those chiark users who were proposed had turned the filtering
off or on on their personal chiark accounts. It wasn't relevant.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Steve Firth
> "Ian holds some unusual views on how internet mail should be managed,
> views that on their own are not a problem no matter how strong the
> opposition to those views are.
They are however a problem for a moderator.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 17:22:36 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:54:57 <ps1e75lnl47eu252e...@4ax.com>
>>uk.net.news.config jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>>
>>>So stop being so fucking stupid your self and explain what you meant
>>>by Richard's involvement in uk.legal.moderated - I am just not aware
>>>of what it is.
>>>
>>>He was definitely correct when he said that you were a fuckwit.
>>>
>>
>>I find it odd that you know about RA thinking I am a bad person but
>>don't know about him being a good person wrt ulm
>
>
>All right - enough.
>
>It was *you* who told us he thought you were a fuckwit.
He has been quite outspoken about it. unnc followers know what he
thinks about me. No secrets there.
>You have obvioulsy made a mistake re ulm
I think ulm is a very successful group. If you think otherwise you can
RFD for it to be rmgrouped.
> - so FOAD if you cannot
>answer the simple question.
I don't know what the question was. Remind me, please.
Tom Crispin
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <8rkd75pn1ddmoqslg...@4ax.com>,
>Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:41:59 +0100, jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>>See message below from 2000 from uk.voting.org
>>
>>If this is genuine, and I have no reason to suspect that it is false,
>
>Yes, this did happen. I was having a bad patch at the time (amongst
>other things, I'd recently been dumped by a long-term partner) and I
>should have recognised and accommodated others' views more quickly.
>
>>it goes a long way to explain why Ian Jackson went to such lengths to
>>hand pick his own committee.
>
>Do I read this to mean that you think I selected the moderators based
>on their views on _spamfiltering_ ?? Because I'm still nursing a
>grudge from losing a flamewar nine years ago ?? That's surely taking
>paranoia too far. For all but one of the moderators I had no idea
>what their views on spamfiltering were! [1]
No - that is not what I am suggesting.
But having been badly let down in the past it stands to reason that
you would want to hand pick your lieutenants.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk>
Which moderator? Or did you mean a potential moderation system?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>having been badly let down in the past it stands to reason that
>you would want to hand pick your lieutenants.
I think you're being rather paranoid, Tom. I think the proposed mods
are a fairly eclectic bunch, except in as much as they are all
cyclists.
I put the selection of mods down to what is known in my firm as the
"JFDI approach". This looks like it should be workable on day one,
get it going and refine it once it's in operation if need be.
Ian's not shown any signs of foolish dogma in the RFD process, as far
as I can see, and has been commendably restrained in the face of quite
extreme provocation from judith, for example with her polemical sig
and her overt canvassing.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society
Clive George
news:et7e75h57phq57s6o...@4ax.com...
Eh? It seems to be that he let himself down in the past, something which
he's accepted and is trying to put behind him.
Frankly your two posts in this thread have appeared to me to be borderline
rude, and definitely unhelpful. "Such lengths to hand pick his own
committee"? It seems to me that choosing the moderators in the manner he did
was the easiest option, and in this case also the most sensible. You're the
one who wanted to go to extreme lengths, full ballot and all, and I believe
this was merely so it could be said to be democratic - you didn't actually
have a specific complaint about any of the proposed moderators.
jms
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <8rkd75pn1ddmoqslg...@4ax.com>,
>Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:41:59 +0100, jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>>See message below from 2000 from uk.voting.org
>>
>>If this is genuine, and I have no reason to suspect that it is false,
>
>Yes, this did happen. I was having a bad patch at the time (amongst
>other things, I'd recently been dumped by a long-term partner) and I
>should have recognised and accommodated others' views more quickly.
Just like this time - someone dumped you again?
Don't answer - irrelevant - just like last time.
You have clearly shown that you are not fit and actually lack the
ability to be an even handed moderator.
You even chose to disregard the chiark problems again -*knowing* that
they had been a problem in the past.
Arrogant in the extreme.
I would suggest that people vote NO to you being a moderator - based
on your history - and also you repeating the same problems this time
around - ie having never learned.
You of course have ensured that the only way people can vote against a
particular moderator - is to vote NO to the formation of the group.
I urge people to do just that.
You do not get comments as per below - just from being out of tune
with other people:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I ask as someone who has been viciously flamed by Ian (with
unsubstantiated imputations of dishonesty and incompetence against me)
who nevertheless retains absolute faith in his probity and honesty
when it comes to administering the machinery of democracy fairly,
correctly and honorably.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However Ian made it clear in his early postings that he
intended to implement those unusual views with respect to votetaking
and was extremely reluctant to compromise on this subject. He also
expressed contempt for voters who did not meet a certain level of
expertise and also contempt for voters who did meet a certain level
of expertise but who decided to configure their mail software in a
certain way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If Ian had been receptive to comments from the start and had shown a
small amount of respect for his fellow votetakers, then he would
still be there, no matter how ludicrous his proposals."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"had to be pushed"; it seems he didn't have the good grace to stand
down when the lack of confidence in him became obvious.
=============================================================
Andy Leighton
> On 03 Aug 2009 17:41:30 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <8rkd75pn1ddmoqslg...@4ax.com>,
>>Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:41:59 +0100, jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>>See message below from 2000 from uk.voting.org
>>>
>>>If this is genuine, and I have no reason to suspect that it is false,
>>
>>Yes, this did happen. I was having a bad patch at the time (amongst
>>other things, I'd recently been dumped by a long-term partner) and I
>>should have recognised and accommodated others' views more quickly.
>>
>>>it goes a long way to explain why Ian Jackson went to such lengths to
>>>hand pick his own committee.
>>
>>Do I read this to mean that you think I selected the moderators based
>>on their views on _spamfiltering_ ?? Because I'm still nursing a
>>grudge from losing a flamewar nine years ago ?? That's surely taking
>>paranoia too far. For all but one of the moderators I had no idea
>>what their views on spamfiltering were! [1]
>
> No - that is not what I am suggesting.
>
> But having been badly let down in the past it stands to reason that
> you would want to hand pick your lieutenants.
A pre-selected group of moderators is fairly typical[1] although not
all CFVs list the moderators even when this is the case. Also
moderating panels picking additional members over time is not an
unusual case. Because the practice is so commonplace no evil
(or indeed good) intent can or should be inferred. It is just the
normal way of doing things. To imply otherwise is IMO rather under-
handed and I would have thought beneath you.
[1] Generally and not just in uk.*
--
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_
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Ian's not shown any signs of foolish dogma in the RFD process, as far
>as I can see, and has been commendably restrained in the face of quite
>extreme provocation from judith, for example with her polemical sig
>and her overt canvassing.
>
>Guy
Rubbish.
I objected to the fact that chiark does not interface to MS systems.
Jackson knew that - but was reluctant to admit it.
Others supported me.
He *knew* this had been a previous serious problem in uk.*
discussions.
He wasn't the only one - Damerell was actually involved in the
original discussion of the spam/interface problems years ago.
(Jackson kindly lets him use the chiark system)
No wonder *he* was chosen as a moderator - he'll know which side his
bread is buttered.
Jackson chose to ignore the complaint about chiark again this time -
and has now effectively admitted do nothing about it.
This is unacceptable.
--
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief
moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system, by voting against
the formation of the group.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Frankly your two posts in this thread have appeared to me to be borderline
>rude, and definitely unhelpful. "Such lengths to hand pick his own
>committee"? It seems to me that choosing the moderators in the manner he did
>was the easiest option, and in this case also the most sensible. You're the
>one who wanted to go to extreme lengths, full ballot and all, and I believe
>this was merely so it could be said to be democratic - you didn't actually
>have a specific complaint about any of the proposed moderators.
And I don't think Ian was opposed to democracy as an eventual goal,
either, the lack of it in the first instance was mostly down to
expediency.
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
>And I don't think Ian was opposed to democracy as an eventual goal,
>either, the lack of it in the first instance was mostly down to
>expediency.
>
>Guy
democracy?
Does he know the meaning of the word. History would say no. That was
why he was sacked.
expediency?
why?
I would have thought it was better to do things properly than in a
rush and badly (which is what he has done)
--
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.
Tom Crispin
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Neither do I have a complaint about Judith, Nuxx, Firth, et al posting
to Usenet. That does not imply that I agree with what they say, and
from time to time I may say so - but usually I ignore them.
Tim Woodall
From: Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Ian, I've just tried to email you (I've reconfigured my system so it
should work) and I've just got:
Aug 3 18:54:30 mailrelay sm-mta[22700]: n73IrL1I022698:
to=<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>, delay=00:01:07, xdelay=00:01:07,
mailer=esmtp, pri=123333, relay=mx-relay.chiark.greenend.org.uk.
[212.13.197.229], dsn=5.1.1, stat=User unknown
Aug 3 18:54:38 mailrelay sm-mta[22700]: n73IrL1I022698: n73Isc1H022700:
DSN: User unknown
Tim.
p.s. My Reply-To is valid, my From is not.
Tim Woodall
I'm just not prepared to try and defeat it. (Up until a few weeks ago
this would have worked. But i'm in the process of changing ISPs and IPs
on some servers and some changes are still in flux. Your's is the _ONLY_
server that has refused mail during this process - that's 15-20k emails
per day)
Tim.
--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.
Tom Crispin
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 18:56:49 +0100, "Clive George"
><cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Frankly your two posts in this thread have appeared to me to be borderline
>>rude, and definitely unhelpful. "Such lengths to hand pick his own
>>committee"? It seems to me that choosing the moderators in the manner he did
>>was the easiest option, and in this case also the most sensible. You're the
>>one who wanted to go to extreme lengths, full ballot and all, and I believe
>>this was merely so it could be said to be democratic - you didn't actually
>>have a specific complaint about any of the proposed moderators.
>
>And I don't think Ian was opposed to democracy as an eventual goal,
>either, the lack of it in the first instance was mostly down to
>expediency.
Once a process is in place it is extremely difficult to change it.
If it was Ian's intent to create a democratic process it should have
been in the RFDs with a timescale: e.g. *Moderators will be elected by
31 March 2010 and thereafter every three years. For the interim
period the moderators will be...*.
I think that I recall Ian saying that he *would not rule out elected
moderators in the future* or something similar (I cannot be bothered
to look it up). I interpreted that as *I have absoltely no intention
of holding elections for moderators in the future.*
jms
<dev...@woodall.me.uk> wrote:
ffs
It is his system which is broken.
He knows it
I know it.
Microsoft know it.
Everyone but you knows it.
It will however run the moderation software OK.
Don't worry.
Phil the Farmer
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 06:11:01 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 3, 10:41 am, jms <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>> http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/statements/notice-ukvoting-ian-jackson-200...
>> Stale, lame, irrelevant to the creation or otherwise of
>> uk.rec.cycling.trollfree, and a blatant attempt to poison the well.
>> Keep up the good work, you have probably done far more than Ian to
>> persuade waverers of the merits of and need for
>> uk.rec.cycling.trollfree.
>
> Well I am sorry sunshine - but I think it may be relevant.
>
> As far as I am concerned it certainly explains many of his actions
> over the proposed creation of the new group.
>
Judith is nothing if not assiduous - has anyone else seen his post on
uk.legal about the legality of a disinfectant manufacturer labelling its
product with a both a 'RRP' and a lower 'special offer' price?
"is it legal?" he asked.
Priceless!
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>And I don't think Ian was opposed to democracy as an eventual goal,
>>either, the lack of it in the first instance was mostly down to
>>expediency.
>
>Once a process is in place it is extremely difficult to change it.
There isn't a process. There is a proposed group and a set of initial
moderators. If the group then decides it would like to institute a
process for selecting future mods, there's no reason at all why it
should not do so. But it does not need to complicate the RFD process.
Mod selection within a group should be relatively simple; franchise
can be established according to simple criteria (e.g. more than ten
posts in the last month and not more than 5% of posts being moderated,
just as an example off the top of my head). No need to involve uk.v
or anyone else. Try to do that outside the context of the new group
and you'll spend the rest of your life sorting out the contents of
people's hosiery drawers.
Most moderated groups do not seem to have a big problem with just
choosing mods, as far as I can tell.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>Neither do I have a complaint about Judith, Nuxx, Firth, et al posting
>to Usenet. That does not imply that I agree with what they say, and
>from time to time I may say so - but usually I ignore them.
I don't have a problem with them posting. I do have a problem with
them posting as they currently do to this group (and that is part of
their aim). It has degraded the group to the point of near
uselessness (and that, too, is part of their aim).
We currently have a group which is dominated, even if nobody ever
replied, by people who don't cycle, don't like cycing, don't like
cyclists, don't like anybody who knows more than them about cycling,
and will do their damndest to make the group as unpleasant as humanly
possible for those who want to use it for anything other than
undermining cycling. As a nice little sideline they also want to
undermine the people they don't like, especially those who have bested
them in debate. Oh, and there's the harassment as well. You've seen
at least one of them set out their demands: certain people may not
post, and certain subjects may not be discussed, otherwise they will
do their damndest to destroy the group. And this was one of those who
characterises the proposed moderated group as "censorship".
Google Groups is how most people read newsgroups. If you put in a
query about cycling, in the odl days you'd rapidly find some good
advice on urc. These days every piece of good advice has to be
"balanced" by an aggressive statement of ill-informed prejudice,
because the mission-posters have made it their mission to esure that
anybody who posts well-informed opinion is instantly attacked and
derided and often dangerous misinformation added to the mix. It's a
great achievement on judith's part, it's taken a lot of effort, but
she has successfully rendered a long-standing, useful, informative,
well-informed resource into something that more closely reflects
popular prejudice about cycling.
You may be happy to put up with it, Tom, but you can't deny that a lot
of people have voted with their feet on this one.
James
wrote:
> On 03 Aug 2009 17:41:30 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
>
>
>
> >In article <8rkd75pn1ddmoqslgnmhaqih66o149e...@4ax.com>,
> >Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> >>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:41:59 +0100, jms <moderation2...@live.co.uk>
> >>wrote:
> >>>See message below from 2000 from uk.voting.org
>
> >>If this is genuine, and I have no reason to suspect that it is false,
>
> >Yes, this did happen. I was having a bad patch at the time (amongst
> >other things, I'd recently been dumped by a long-term partner) and I
> >should have recognised and accommodated others' views more quickly.
>
> >>it goes a long way to explain why Ian Jackson went to such lengths to
> >>hand pick his own committee.
>
> >Do I read this to mean that you think I selected the moderators based
> >on their views on _spamfiltering_ ?? Because I'm still nursing a
> >grudge from losing a flamewar nine years ago ?? That's surely taking
> >paranoia too far. For all but one of the moderators I had no idea
> >what their views on spamfiltering were! [1]
>
> No - that is not what I am suggesting.
>
> But having been badly let down in the past it stands to reason that
> you would want to hand pick your lieutenants.
Tom,
You seem to be increasingly determined to make a dick of yourself over
this moderation proposal. I suggest you just get over it.
James
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Most moderated groups do not seem to have a big problem with just
>choosing mods, as far as I can tell.
>
>Guy
Most moderated groups are not run by a clique, for a clique and from a
broken system to boot. I bet on all other systems if you want to
email the moderators, you can do.
It was obvious some people were unhappy with the moderators and the
way in which they were hand-picked.
Anyone who suggest that it would have been too hard to have elected
them in parallel is wrong - and obviously did not want to do that.
I can see now why Jackson wanted his hand picked minions when there
are other significant issues to be resolved.
I will bet now, that Jackson will try persuade the team that it is ok
to run with chiark as it is.
Whether he succeeds or not will depend on whether they have any balls
or not.
I am genuinely surprised that one of the more reasonable ones has not
said - enough is enough - I do not like the way "we" are doing things
- I will not take up the offer of being a moderator.
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:07:20 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>Neither do I have a complaint about Judith, Nuxx, Firth, et al posting
>>to Usenet. That does not imply that I agree with what they say, and
>>from time to time I may say so - but usually I ignore them.
>
>I don't have a problem with them posting. I do have a problem with
>them posting as they currently do to this group (and that is part of
>their aim). It has degraded the group to the point of near
>uselessness (and that, too, is part of their aim).
No - you cannot blame the people who you call trolls.
Have a look at the posts which I have made. They are of at least two
different types:
1) responding to reasonable people in a reasonable fashion
disagreeing with them when appropriate and in an appropriate fashion.
2) Dealing with fuckwits - that includes those who pretend to have me
in a kill-file; but obviously don't have - and who cannot resist the
temptation to give me a prod.
(You are in the fuckwit camp)
*You* were told time and time again to let things be. You were told
this by colleagues and "friends".
You refused to take this advice.- you liked to keep things on the
boil.
>We currently have a group which is dominated, even if nobody ever
>replied, by people who don't cycle, don't like cycing, don't like
>cyclists, don't like anybody who knows more than them about cycling,
>and will do their damndest to make the group as unpleasant as humanly
>possible for those who want to use it for anything other than
>undermining cycling.
Not true.
I only cycle very rarely now.
I have family members who do cycle.
I am interested in cycling.
I am interested in the safety aspects of cycling.
>As a nice little sideline they also want to
>undermine the people they don't like, especially those who have bested
>them in debate.
I do not like you.
I despise you.
You are dishonest.
You have never "bested" me in a debate. Just look at how you have
walked away from what was a sensible one earlier to day - you had to
give up with my criticisms of cyclehelmets.org.
If I am wrong - I do admit it.
If you are wrong - you will never admit it (Lou Knee)
You will however, lie and distort things to your "friends"; who will
tend to believe what you say because Guy's a decent chap.
That is probably why I detest you so much.
>You may be happy to put up with it, Tom, but you can't deny that a lot
>of people have voted with their feet on this one.
>
>Guy
This group was dying before I turned up.
You however, personally made me so welcome - I decided to stay here.
Have I said I despise you?
(Sorry ........ ? ....forgot)
jms
wrote:
<snip>
>Tom,
>
>You seem to be increasingly determined to make a dick of yourself over
>this moderation proposal. I suggest you just get over it.
>
>James
fascinating - he disagrees with quite a few people with very valid
comments, and the best you can do is accuse him of making a dick of
himself.
Why not actually respond to the points and questions he has raised?
Simon Brooke
wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:44:20 +0100, Tom Crispin
>
> >>And I don't think Ian was opposed to democracy as an eventual goal,
> >>either, the lack of it in the first instance was mostly down to
> >>expediency.
>
> >Once a process is in place it is extremely difficult to change it.
>
> There isn't a process. There is a proposed group and a set of initial
> moderators. If the group then decides it would like to institute a
> process for selecting future mods, there's no reason at all why it
> should not do so. But it does not need to complicate the RFD process.
>
> Mod selection within a group should be relatively simple; franchise
> can be established according to simple criteria (e.g. more than ten
> posts in the last month and not more than 5% of posts being moderated,
> just as an example off the top of my head). No need to involve uk.v
> or anyone else. Try to do that outside the context of the new group
> and you'll spend the rest of your life sorting out the contents of
> people's hosiery drawers.
I'm honestly not persuaded this is a good idea. The creation of a
moderated group does not block free speech; anyone is still free to
post anything they like to uk.rec.cycling. The difference between urc
and urcm should be a bit like the difference between the public bar
and the lounge bar of an old fashioned pub. In the public bar you can
get away with swearing, insults and loutish behaviour, if you try it
in the lounge bar you'll get thrown out.
But the users of the lounge bar don't get to elect the publican, and
no-one thinks they ought. The pub works because if the publican is too
surly he'll drive everyone away, and the pub will go out of business.
It is organic, and it doesn't need a big administrative or
bureaucratic overhead. If there are rules then those who wish to wreck
will always be niggling at the edges of the rules, and arguing the
toss about judgement calls. And if that happens the new group will
rapidly turn to, in your so elegant phrase, 'rat shit'.
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and
every moderation decision is unexplained and final. That way, there's
no continuous flame war about this or that moderation decision.
Similarly I think it would be a very bad idea to have a codified
procedure for electing new moderators, because every codified
procedure can be and will be gamed, and we'll end up with Judith,
Nuxxy and friends elected as moderators within a decade. I think the
moderators should, from time to time, co-opt new moderators
arbitrarily and without public discussion.
I know this proposal will make Tom have yet another a hissy fit and
throw his toys out of the pram again, but I'm completely unshaken by
that. I confidently predict that Tom will, within six months of its
creation, be as positive and constructive a member of the new group as
he was of the old.
Rob Morley
Simon Brooke <stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I know this proposal will make Tom have yet another a hissy fit and
> throw his toys out of the pram again, but I'm completely unshaken by
> that. I confidently predict that Tom will, within six months of its
> creation, be as positive and constructive a member of the new group as
> he was of the old.
I know you really don't seem to understand the problem, but there's
absolutely no need to take that sort of attitude. I seem to share Tom's
views about the creation of a moderated group. If the new group
is created I'll participate from the outset. The fact that I have
voiced disquiet doesn't mean that I don't want it to succeed, just that
I am doubtful that it will. I'll be happy to be proved wrong.
Mr Benn
"Ian Jackson" <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Med*ot...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article <8rkd75pn1ddmoqslg...@4ax.com>,
> Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:41:59 +0100, jms <moderat...@live.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>>See message below from 2000 from uk.voting.org
>>
>>If this is genuine, and I have no reason to suspect that it is false,
>
> Yes, this did happen. I was having a bad patch at the time (amongst
> other things, I'd recently been dumped by a long-term partner) and I
> should have recognised and accommodated others' views more quickly.
Please make sure you don't mess up again this time. And please be fair.
Mr Benn
"Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
That's excactly what I do with posters who annoy me. That is absolutely the
correct thing to and it's hardly difficult. I don't know why some people
have this great problem with it. They won't be happy until all those they
disagree with are banished from "their" group. It's pathetic.
Mr Benn
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:epje75tu1eca0gokp...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:07:20 +0100, Tom Crispin
> <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>Neither do I have a complaint about Judith, Nuxx, Firth, et al posting
>>to Usenet. That does not imply that I agree with what they say, and
>>from time to time I may say so - but usually I ignore them.
Doesn't stop you moaning about them. Are you sure you're ignoring them?
Just zis Guy, you know?
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.chap...@spamcop.net> wrote in messagenews:epje75tu1eca0gokp...@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:07:20 +0100, Tom Crispin
> > <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
> >>Neither do I have a complaint about Judith, Nuxx, Firth, et al posting
> >>to Usenet. That does not imply that I agree with what they say, and
> >>from time to time I may say so - but usually I ignore them.
>
> Doesn't stop you moaning about them. Are you sure you're ignoring them?
Check your attribution.
--
Guy
Mr Benn
>Check your attribution.
Sorry Guy, my mistake.
Ian Jackson
Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>Once a process is in place it is extremely difficult to change it.
This isn't quite as true as usual in this case. Specifically,
changing things by setting up a new newsgroup is extremely difficult,
as you can see.
After the group is set up the moderators have a free hand to change
almost anything. Specifically, anything not mentioned in the
charter; that's why my proposal has a short and vague charter.
>If it was Ian's intent to create a democratic process it should have
>been in the RFDs with a timescale: e.g. *Moderators will be elected by
>31 March 2010 and thereafter every three years. For the interim
>period the moderators will be...*.
But, having said that, it wasn't my intent to create a democratic
process for the selection of moderators. My view is that democracy
doesn't work very well on USENET, mainly because of the difficulty of
deciding who should be in the electorate and the ease with which a
single person can get multiple votes. And, nowadays (with the
proliferation of other venues for discussion) the problems that
democracy is needed to solve - abuse of power by the cabal - are more
easily addressed by people collectively choosing another cabal by
voting with their feet.
I say this with long experience on USENET (as a voter, votetaker,
participant in news.groups in the mid 90s) and also as someone who
strongly favours democratic accountability in many other contexts,
such as real-world structures and online organisations with
significant hurdles to sockpuppetry and entryism. For example, I
played a big role in the democratisation of Debian (writing its
constitution) and of Software in the Public Interest.
So while it's quite possible that the readers and moderators will
decide that we should have elections and in that case we will have
elections, personally I would oppose such a proposal.
>I think that I recall Ian saying that he *would not rule out elected
>moderators in the future* or something similar (I cannot be bothered
>to look it up). I interpreted that as *I have absoltely no intention
>of holding elections for moderators in the future.*
Indeed, I don't have any such intention and I would oppose such a
proposal. But it's not up to just me and I haven't discussed this
with the other moderators.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Aard
D'ya know, I don't think you're a mile away from being right on this
one, at least in terms of the _result_ if not the _causation_ of it. I
don't presume to speak for anyone else, but I _can_ speak for me
personally, and I don't think its quite as black and white as you
present it above - I've rarely come across a debate that so polarises
its protagonists as cycling _in this group_ . I didn't start posting
in this group with the direct intent to 'damage' cycling popularity,
and (with the caveat above) I don't reckon the posters you mention did
either - I think the sometimes quite deliberate vilification of other
road users tended to make those posters (and me) more than a little
keen to 'redress the balance' and point out the flaws in the arguments
presented. I can think of at least three distinct posters who seemed
and still do seem to intentionally castigate car drivers and _in the
same post_ condone lawbreaking by cyclists. Not to mention throwing in
terms like 'cager', trying to stoke the fire a bit. Yes, its a cycling
group so you expect a little bias, but I don't see posters on ukt
championing imbeciles who put up utube videos of them hurtling down
the road at 150mph, so why do urc regs have no problem in condoning
RLJ's, pavement cycling, and most of all, CM intimidation of other
road users?
Rob Morley
Aard <aard...@the.zoo> wrote:
> so why do urc regs have no problem in condoning
> RLJ's, pavement cycling, and most of all, CM intimidation of other
> road users?
I suspect that most don't approve of that behaviour, I certainly don't,
but I don't see the point of criticising every post made by its
proponents (I probably won't see them anyway because they're quite
likely killfiled).
Roger Thorpe
hardly seems worthwhile joining in.
--
Roger Thorpe
...Wait a minute, It's stopped raining/
Guys are swimming, guys are sailing.....
Mr Benn
> In article <ptde75pvmcb627s87...@4ax.com>,
> But, having said that, it wasn't my intent to create a democratic
> process for the selection of moderators. My view is that democracy
> doesn't work very well on USENET,
That's a convenient excuse isn't it? Abandon a democratic process because
you don't think it works very well. Someone else who is impartial should be
doing your job. Your choice of hand-picked moderators clearly shows that
you are not impartial.
Rob Morley
Roger Thorpe <myinitial...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
> Our CM agonist has brought with him his own tireless antagonists. It
> hardly seems worthwhile joining in.
>
Yet occasionally I do. Mine is more a token contribution than a
tireless ceaseless crusade. :-)
Tom Crispin
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>My view is that democracy
>doesn't work very well on USENET
The Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, might make the same claim of independent
states.
And before you blast that as comparing 'apples and oranges' take a
look at the pathetic state of the non-democratic us.* hierarchy and
the healthy state of the democratic uk.* hierarchy.
Simon Brooke
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:08:18 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
> terms like 'cager', trying to stoke the fire a bit. Yes, its a cycling
> group so you expect a little bias, but I don't see posters on ukt
> championing imbeciles who put up utube videos of them hurtling down
> the road at 150mph, so why do urc regs have no problem in condoning
> RLJ's, pavement cycling, and most of all, CM intimidation of other
> road users?
Look, this is really a load of rubbish. The only people - the only two
people - who don't condemn pavement cycling and red light jumping are
Doug (who is probably certifiably insane, and certainly not
representative of anything this side of planet Zog) and spindrift (who
is on the whole saner, but still not representative of the group as a
whole). The overwhelming majority of regular posters loudly and
regularly condemn both pavement cycling and red light jumping.
Very few of us have ever taken part in Critical Mass. I've never even
seen a Critical Mass event, so I have no view of it one way or the
other. People like you and Doug both claim (from opposite sides of the
fence) that these events are highly confrontational, but the YouTube
videos I've seen don't show that at all - but instead a relaxed and
family friendly event. But if there is intimidation - by any road
user of any other road user - then I would condemn it no matter who it
came from; and so would most other people here.
I agree that the silly fifth form epithets ('motons', 'cagers' etc)
are puerile and unhelpful; and I agree far too many people here use
them. But it simply isn't true that 'urc regulars', as a group condone
red light jumping, pavement cycling, or intimidation. The overwhelming
majority of regular posters here condemn all these things, and always
have.
Andy Leighton
Have you even tried to establish cause and effect there or is that
some wild assertion without anything to back it up?
The us.* hierarchy never really got off the ground but it wasn't due
to lack of democratic control. After all look at how well web fora
do - and they aren't very democratic at all.
--
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_
jms
<dev...@woodall.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>I've just seen what is wrong. Boy, your mailserver is anal. Forget it -
>I'm just not prepared to try and defeat it. (Up until a few weeks ago
>this would have worked. But i'm in the process of changing ISPs and IPs
>on some servers and some changes are still in flux. Your's is the _ONLY_
>server that has refused mail during this process - that's 15-20k emails
>per day)
Ho, ho ho,
"your mailserver is anal" - love it.
Wicked.
I think you will find that it conforms to all relevant international
standards including ISO/DIS 4074-1
He is a knob, after all.
Tom Crispin
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 4 Aug, 12:00, Aard <aardv...@the.zoo> wrote:
>> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 22:08:18 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>
>> Not to mention throwing in
>> terms like 'cager', trying to stoke the fire a bit. Yes, its a cycling
>> group so you expect a little bias, but I don't see posters on ukt
>> championing imbeciles who put up utube videos of them hurtling down
>> the road at 150mph, so why do urc regs have no problem in condoning
>> RLJ's, pavement cycling, and most of all, CM intimidation of other
>> road users?
>
>Look, this is really a load of rubbish. The only people - the only two
>people - who don't condemn pavement cycling and red light jumping are
>Doug (who is probably certifiably insane, and certainly not
>representative of anything this side of planet Zog) and spindrift (who
>is on the whole saner, but still not representative of the group as a
>whole). The overwhelming majority of regular posters loudly and
>regularly condemn both pavement cycling and red light jumping.
This is not true.
I am on record as having said that I would not condemn a young child
cycling on the pavement alongside a busy road. This I will now extend
to cyclists who feel unsafe on the road and show due respect to other
pavement users. (This is in line with home office guidance to chief
police officers on the issue of fixed penalty notices.)
I have also stated that if at red lights a large vehicle pulls
alongside and you cannot get eye contact with the driver, the safest
course of action would be to get well ahead of the vehicle, even if
that means passing lights on red, provided the junction is clear.
>Very few of us have ever taken part in Critical Mass. I've never even
>seen a Critical Mass event, so I have no view of it one way or the
>other. People like you and Doug both claim (from opposite sides of the
>fence) that these events are highly confrontational, but the YouTube
>videos I've seen don't show that at all - but instead a relaxed and
>family friendly event. But if there is intimidation - by any road
>user of any other road user - then I would condemn it no matter who it
>came from; and so would most other people here.
I have taken part in one CM ride. It is mostly good-natured and
friendly. However, there are bad-tempered moments and disgraceful
behaviour by both motorists and cyclists. For this reason I have not
taken part in a second CM, but will not rule it out in the future.
jms
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
<snip rest of the shirt by one of the moderators?
>It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and
>every moderation decision is unexplained and final.
>Similarly I think it would be a very bad idea to have a codified
>procedure for electing new moderators, because every codified
>procedure can be and will be gamed, and we'll end up with Judith,
>Nuxxy and friends elected as moderators within a decade. I think the
>moderators should, from time to time, co-opt new moderators
>arbitrarily and without public discussion.
ffs - you could not make it up.
And people were wondering why there were complaints against Brooke
been hand-picked as a moderator.
You really are a tosser.
Let's wait and see all the other moderators supporting you over that
sentence.
This is just another reason why the censored group should not be
formed.
Adrian
were saying:
> This is just another reason why the censored group should not be
> formed.
I've got a better idea. Why don't you just leave 'em to it, then show
your defiance by not using the "censored" group once it IS formed?
And, please, if you insist on pursuing your petty vendetta, at least have
the basic decency to leave uk.t and uk.r.d out of it. This is between
uk.r.c and uk.n.n.c, and those two groups alone.
The. Rest. Of. Us. Don't. Fucking. Care.
jms
wrote:
Indeed - and as he has pointed out - if you do not like the
moderators, then you must vote against the proposal.
Geoff Berrow
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>> And before you blast that as comparing 'apples and oranges' take a
>> look at the pathetic state of the non-democratic us.* hierarchy and
>> the healthy state of the democratic uk.* hierarchy.
>
>Have you even tried to establish cause and effect there or is that
>some wild assertion without anything to back it up?
>
>The us.* hierarchy never really got off the ground but it wasn't due
>to lack of democratic control. After all look at how well web fora
>do - and they aren't very democratic at all.
There is a heck of a lot more to it than either of you are stating to
the extent that it's really a non-sequitur.
--
Geoff Berrow
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Mike P
> jms <moderation2...@live.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
Can I somehow vote for Adrian's suggestion of " we don't fucking
care" ? Seriously, we don't, just piss off and leave us out of it.
Mike
Tom Crispin
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:42:45 -0500, Andy Leighton
><an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>> And before you blast that as comparing 'apples and oranges' take a
>>> look at the pathetic state of the non-democratic us.* hierarchy and
>>> the healthy state of the democratic uk.* hierarchy.
>>
>>Have you even tried to establish cause and effect there or is that
>>some wild assertion without anything to back it up?
>>
>>The us.* hierarchy never really got off the ground but it wasn't due
>>to lack of democratic control. After all look at how well web fora
>>do - and they aren't very democratic at all.
>
>There is a heck of a lot more to it than either of you are stating to
>the extent that it's really a non-sequitur.
Perhaps, but the fact remains that uk.* is a democratic and viable
hierarchy and us.* is neither. Sill, at least you helped overthrow
Henrietta as us.* maintainer, and helped with a militray coup d'etard
of us.* by us.military.army groupers and their trolls.
Are you still the *technical advisor* to the us.* junta?
Geoff Berrow
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>There is a heck of a lot more to it than either of you are stating to
>>the extent that it's really a non-sequitur.
>
>Perhaps, but the fact remains that uk.* is a democratic and viable
>hierarchy and us.* is neither.
That has nothing to do with the apathy that now surrounds us.*
>Sill, at least you helped overthrow
>Henrietta as us.* maintainer,
Actually she gave up due to ill-health.
> and helped with a militray coup d'etard
>of us.* by us.military.army groupers and their trolls.
FFS Tom/Ace you we the biggest troll of the lot! The question is, are
you still at it here?
>
>Are you still the *technical advisor* to the us.* junta
Dunno, haven't heard a dickie bird in yonks.
Steve Firth
> > And, please, if you insist on pursuing your petty vendetta, at least have
> > the basic decency to leave uk.t and uk.r.d out of it. This is between
> > uk.r.c and uk.n.n.c, and those two groups alone.
> >
> > The. Rest. Of. Us. Don't. Fucking. Care.
>
> Can I somehow vote for Adrian's suggestion of " we don't fucking
> care" ? Seriously, we don't, just piss off and leave us out of it.
<AOL> Not that Judith will care, she is truly obsessed and well on the
way to permanent net-kook status.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
Ummmm, Geoff, will you let us know before you explode?
I still like TomC but it is getting harder for me to think why.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Wm...
<8b9b97f6-7854-4e47...@f37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
uk.net.news.config Mike P <mikepe...@googlemail.com>
[ff set to unnc]
Hang on ... do you mean the Judith / jms entity isn't one of yours? She
seems to think she is.
P.S. I'm one of the cyclists that indicates clearly, etc.
Adrian
much like they were saying:
> Hang on ... do you mean the Judith / jms entity isn't one of yours? She
> seems to think she is.
Nothing whatsoever to do with uk.t or uk.r.d.
Only time it bothers with us is this whole saga. It's a loon of the lycra
lot's very own. And they're welcome to it.
Dave Larrington
Mr Benn <nos...@invalid.invalid> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
I would think that the person who has proposed the establishment of the
moderated froup is at liberty to ask whoever he likes whether they want to
become moderators, and it's highly unlikely that he would choose any of The
Usual Suspects.
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The onward interchange factor will be unity except for journeys
to Chesham, Croxley or Watford.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk>
>FFS Tom/Ace you we the biggest troll of the lot! The question is, are
>you still at it here?
Am I allowed some time to process this?
Unless I am mistaken Geoff is saying he and Tom have been waving their
penises at each other in another newsgroup.
I don't mind people being unfaithful to a hierarchy but could I suggest
there may be another uk.* group more suitable if you really want to get
down to things.
Ian Jackson
Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>On 04 Aug 2009 11:33:18 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
><ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>My view is that democracy doesn't work very well on USENET
>
>The Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, might make the same claim of independent
>states.
Uhhh ? Did you actually read anything I said ?
How might citizens of North Korea (or Britain, for that matter) in
practice exercise the democracy of their feet ? Moving to a different
country is quite a different matter to reading and posting to a
different online forum!
In contrast, the democracy of the feet is what's killing urc: people
prefer a venue with effective policing, even if it's by a
self-perpetuating oligarchy or autocracy, than one with none at all.
>And before you blast that as comparing 'apples and oranges' take a
>look at the pathetic state of the non-democratic us.* hierarchy and
>the healthy state of the democratic uk.* hierarchy.
What relevance does your comment about us.* have to do with my `apples
and oranges' rebuttal ? You seem to have completely lost the plot.
Could you please try to engage your reasoning skills; if all you can
do is make emotive comparisions with despots then there's little point
me (or anyone else) trying to talk to you.
To answer your point about us.* directly, us.* has been broken
forever. The big-8 has been revived out of near-sclerosis by a new
cabal, and no longer holds plebiscites. I think this is a good thing.
During the time when I was a votetaker in the big-8,
soc.religion.islam.ahmadiyya and soc.culture.macedonia were both
defeated by huge turnouts from opponents (religious bigots and odious
Greek nationalists, respectively). They were able to get the vote out
in such numbers that despite also committing massive fraud in both
cases it was clear that the vote had been soundly lost and the
votetaker didn't even bother trying to disentangle the frauds from the
real votes.
Those two sets of people could get no newsgroup in the big-8. That's
democracy, you may say. But it's not freedom of speech - it's tyranny
of the mob.
Simon Brooke
> "Ian Jackson" <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:gyd*Bo...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
> > In article <ptde75pvmcb627s87338l9mro0dkg0v...@4ax.com>,
> > But, having said that, it wasn't my intent to create a democratic
> > process for the selection of moderators. My view is that democracy
> > doesn't work very well on USENET,
>
> That's a convenient excuse isn't it? Abandon a democratic process because
> you don't think it works very well. Someone else who is impartial should be
> doing your job. Your choice of hand-picked moderators clearly shows that
> you are not impartial.
Look, what you (and those who agree with you) need to explain is why
you think having a bureaucratic overhead would be a good idea. You've
seen how much hassle, ill feeling and general noise have been stirred
up by this one vote, it's practically taken over the whole group for
more than two months. Do you really want that repeated annually?
The proposed group is not the only forum in the whole world. It isn't
even the only forum in Britain. There are at least ten other UK
cycling forums available over the web which I could name now, every
one of which is more active and better tempered than this group. None
of them are democratic. Does it matter? When the owners of one of them
instituted a system that a lot of the users didn't like, the users
went away and set up another. No need for a vote or a big fuss or row,
just go and do it. But we can't do that on Usenet, because of the
bureaucratic overhead... so we have this mess.
If, in the new froup, we set up a set of codified rules about how
things should work, we'll give the obsessives and the nit-pickers and
the barrack-room lawyers and the fifth form debating society
specialists a field day, and spend all our time discussing whether the
moderators interpreted sub-clause 4.6a of rule 27b as amended by
proposal 19 correctly. I don't want to do that. I want to talk about
bicycles. Rules bore me.
If you feel the proposed froup, as proposed, isn't for you, that's
fine. Don't use it. Go and find one that suits you better, or publish
an RFC for a new one.
Tom Crispin
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:53:18 <ggig75logle62d1v5...@4ax.com>
>uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk>
>
>>FFS Tom/Ace you we the biggest troll of the lot! The question is, are
>>you still at it here?
us.* was under incompetent management - even you must acknowledge
that: you were a key player in the overthrow of Henrietta.
>Am I allowed some time to process this?
>
>Unless I am mistaken Geoff is saying he and Tom have been waving their
>penises at each other in another newsgroup.
Geoff and I have met in several NGs over the years. I wouldn't put
our discourse in the same crude terms as you have: our conversations
have been mostly amicable.
I have particularly enjoyed Geoff's descriptions of climbing Tryfan
and Ben Nevis, and have been saddened by what he has told us about
Magic.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com>
The cyclists don't want it either. It does seem to think you want it.
What now?
I've an idea, we take the Judith / jms entity and spit roast it. We
draw lots for which group gets which end.
It should realise, after a bit of getting smacked around, that no-one
wants it.
Or have we already done that?
Next idea ...
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:27:10 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:53:18 <ggig75logle62d1v5...@4ax.com>
>>uk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow <blth...@ckdog.co.uk>
>>
>>>FFS Tom/Ace you we the biggest troll of the lot! The question is, are
>>>you still at it here?
>
>us.* was under incompetent management - even you must acknowledge
>that: you were a key player in the overthrow of Henrietta.
Not me. Are you muddling me with someone else?
Geoff Berrow
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>>FFS Tom/Ace you we the biggest troll of the lot! The question is, are
>>you still at it here?
>
>Am I allowed some time to process this?
>
>Unless I am mistaken Geoff is saying he and Tom have been waving their
>penises at each other in another newsgroup.
Not at all. Tom and I meet up in several groups. He is a very
amusing and entertaining poster especially in the merkin froups where
they don't 'get' him at all. TTBOMK he doesn't troll in uk.*.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:49:03 +0100, Geoff Berrow
><blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>Unless I am mistaken Geoff is saying he and Tom have been waving their
>>>penises at each other in another newsgroup.
>>
>>Not at all. Tom and I meet up in several groups. He is a very
>>amusing and entertaining poster especially in the merkin froups where
>>they don't 'get' him at all. TTBOMK he doesn't troll in uk.*.
>
>Thanks, Geoff. You have given me an idea. A troll - in the true
>tradition of the art, crossposted to unnc and urc.
>
>I think we could all do with having a laugh at ourselves.
Ready and waiting, for it to be pure you're not meant to reply, Tom, it
should be one post that gets a lot of people going.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Unless I am mistaken Geoff is saying he and Tom have been waving their
>penises at each other in another newsgroup.
Eh? As far as I can tell they are both normal people who use their
real names and don't say anything they wouldn't say to the other's
face down the pub. At least not that I've seen.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society
Just zis Guy, you know?
<stil...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Very few of us have ever taken part in Critical Mass. I've never even
>seen a Critical Mass event, so I have no view of it one way or the
>other. People like you and Doug both claim (from opposite sides of the
>fence) that these events are highly confrontational, but the YouTube
>videos I've seen don't show that at all - but instead a relaxed and
>family friendly event. But if there is intimidation - by any road
>user of any other road user - then I would condemn it no matter who it
>came from; and so would most other people here.
I ave seen one once, it looked like it might be fun to try one summer
evening, but since Doug came along he has persuaded me that it's
almost certainly not to my taste - and in any case "what summer?". So
if I have a summer evening spare I will go to the Proms again instead.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>The Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, might make the same claim of independent
>states.
I wonder if that might count as a Godwin post?
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>That's a convenient excuse isn't it? Abandon a democratic process because
>you don't think it works very well. Someone else who is impartial should be
>doing your job. Your choice of hand-picked moderators clearly shows that
>you are not impartial.
He's not required to be impartial. If you want to set up a moderated
group and take on the burden, and additionally want to propose a
democratic process so that would-be moderators get to be Aunt Sally
for every passing whacknut, then go ahead.
Tom Crispin
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:08:46 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>The Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, might make the same claim of independent
>>states.
>
>I wonder if that might count as a Godwin post?
Can you post Godwin's Law so we can judge?
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>The Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, might make the same claim of independent
>>>states.
>>I wonder if that might count as a Godwin post?
>Can you post Godwin's Law so we can judge?
More to the point, today I am sure that I violated Cole's law.
Wm...
uk.rec.cycling "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net>
>On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:17:06 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>>>The Dear Leader, Kim Jong-il, might make the same claim of independent
>>>>states.
>>>I wonder if that might count as a Godwin post?
>>Can you post Godwin's Law so we can judge?
>
>More to the point, today I am sure that I violated Cole's law.
Salad dressing just isn't going to be the same for me for a few days at
least.
Geoff Berrow
Wm, how are you able to see posts from the future? I can't see them.
Perhaps you can ask Tom for the lottery numbers?
Tom Crispin
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 20:25:14 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Fri, 4 Sep 2009 20:17:52 <4sp2a5hov77kqe086...@4ax.com>
>>uk.net.news.config Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge>
>>
>>>On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:49:03 +0100, Geoff Berrow
>>><blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Unless I am mistaken Geoff is saying he and Tom have been waving their
>>>>>penises at each other in another newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. Tom and I meet up in several groups. He is a very
>>>>amusing and entertaining poster especially in the merkin froups where
>>>>they don't 'get' him at all. TTBOMK he doesn't troll in uk.*.
>>>
>>>Thanks, Geoff. You have given me an idea. A troll - in the true
>>>tradition of the art, crossposted to unnc and urc.
>>>
>>>I think we could all do with having a laugh at ourselves.
>>
>>Ready and waiting, for it to be pure you're not meant to reply, Tom, it
>>should be one post that gets a lot of people going.
>
>Wm, how are you able to see posts from the future? I can't see them.
>
>Perhaps you can ask Tom for the lottery numbers?
14, 27, 29, 34, 39 and 45. Bonus ball 29.
Geoff Berrow
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>Wm, how are you able to see posts from the future? I can't see them.
>>
>>Perhaps you can ask Tom for the lottery numbers?
>
>14, 27, 29, 34, 39 and 45. Bonus ball 29.
Not only the future but an alternate reality in which the lottery has
two balls numbered 29...
Tom Crispin
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 10:12:46 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>>Wm, how are you able to see posts from the future? I can't see them.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you can ask Tom for the lottery numbers?
>>
>>14, 27, 29, 34, 39 and 45. Bonus ball 29.
>
>Not only the future but an alternate reality in which the lottery has
>two balls numbered 29...
Ahhh! I had hoped that you knew me better than that. You fell for
that little twist.
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 16:27:10 +0100, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Unless I am mistaken Geoff is saying he and Tom have been waving their
>>penises at each other in another newsgroup.
>
>Eh? As far as I can tell they are both normal people who use their
>real names and don't say anything they wouldn't say to the other's
>face down the pub. At least not that I've seen.
>
>Guy
One fuckwit - responding to another.
No more - no less
--
Show your non-acceptance of Ian Jackson as the proposed chief moderator of URCM and the use of his chiark system.
Vote against the formation of the group.
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:34:51 +0100, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>That's a convenient excuse isn't it? Abandon a democratic process because
>>you don't think it works very well. Someone else who is impartial should be
>>doing your job. Your choice of hand-picked moderators clearly shows that
>>you are not impartial.
>
>He's not required to be impartial
Yes - I see what you mean.
He mustn't be balanced and fair.
He mustn't let posts through if there is nothing wrong - other than
being from a particular poster.
He mustn't stop unacceptable posts form white-listed people.
The last thing we need is impartiality.