Re: Proposed uk.rec.cycling.moderated
Tom Crispin
wrote:
[uk.rec.cycling added to the newsgroup line]
>On 2 July, 01:03, jms <moderation2...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> I request that Reopen Discussion is available.
>>
>> There is no urgency for the formation of the group �- there are
>> however issues yet to be resolved.
>
>I request that reopen discussion not be available. The current
>proposal should be voted on as is and stand or fall on its merits.
I see no reason for further discussion.
I have made my concerns on the proposed group known. I will not
discuss the proposal further.
On a related matter, I was made moderator of the Greenwich Cyclists'
Yahoo! group yesterday. The decision was made by the full Greenwich
Cyclists' committee at a meeting open to all.
Ian Smith
>
> On a related matter, I was made moderator of the Greenwich Cyclists'
> Yahoo! group yesterday. The decision was made by the full Greenwich
> Cyclists' committee at a meeting open to all.
So, you were appoointed by a clique without a transparent election
process open to every potential participant of teh group.
regards, ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Happi Monday
Who cares? - the quicker the moderation pricks f*** off, the better.
Tom Crispin
>On Thu, 02 Jul, Tom Crispin <> wrote:
>>
>> On a related matter, I was made moderator of the Greenwich Cyclists'
>> Yahoo! group yesterday. The decision was made by the full Greenwich
>> Cyclists' committee at a meeting open to all.
>
>So, you were appoointed by a clique without a transparent election
>process open to every potential participant of teh group.
The committee are all elected. I would not call them a clique (nor
would you if you met them.) I was selected, not elected, but without
objection from anyone on the committee and without objection from
anyone at the meeting.
The decision was not on the agenda, but will be minuted, and
objections, if there are any, will be heard in September (there is no
monthly meeting in August).
It is a democratic process.
Clive George
news:ousp45lqhg0e7mqbk...@4ax.com...
So it was felt that there were no need for formal elections. Just like the
proposal for urcm in fact.
> It is a democratic process.
As is that for urcm. You've got a vote. If you truly feel that a formally
elected moderation panel will add value to the proposed group, and won't
simply provide a few weeks extra bickering to come up with something pretty
similar to what is currently proposed, then you can say "No", or "ROD" if
that's available.
If on the other hand that in the same way the committee in Greenwich
reckoned you were a suitable moderator, the group selected is likely to be
suitable, then you can say "Yes".
It's exactly the same process. If Ian's statement is true for the proposed
urcm panel (and some will claim it is), it's true for your selection.
Whether or not this is a problem is a different question - in both cases I
don't think it is, but that's just my POV.
(Of course merely believing the panel should be elected shouldn't be a
reason to vote "No", if that panel is sufficiently similar to what you'd
have voted for anyway.)
You've said you believe the recent surge of enthusiasm has made the need for
urcm redundant. I disagree, and urge you to reconsider, without your
mischievous troll-wrestling hat on. I know you enjoy baiting Judith et al,
but I'm afraid if this proposal doesn't succeed, that's getting on for all
you'll be able to do in the future. The people who have reappeared will
drift away again, and the group will remain appearing hostile to new
posters, which will result in a continued decline.
Steve Firth
> I was made moderator of the Greenwich Cyclists'
> Yahoo! group yesterday.
Holy good gravy. One presumes that you were welcomed into office by the
sound of mass barking, if you and Duhg "Don't Call Me Bollen" Bollen are
anything to go by.
Marc
Rob Morley
Happi Monday <ha...@monday.com> wrote:
> Who cares? - the quicker the moderation pricks f*** off, the better.
Are you incapable of setting up a filter on everything cross-posted to
unnc, or do you just like to whinge?
Keitht
It used to be a device for halting amorous advances from possible
suitors -- a hat pin.
HTH
--
Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.
Trevor A Panther
"Clive George" <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:OPWdnWZh4vbpZtHX...@brightview.co.uk...
> "Tom Crispin" <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in message
> news:ousp45lqhg0e7mqbk...@4ax.com...
>> On 02 Jul 2009 17:31:04 GMT, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 02 Jul, Tom Crispin <> wrote:
>>>>
<snipped>
>> It is a democratic process.
>
> As is that for urcm. You've got a vote. If you truly feel that a formally
> elected moderation panel will add value to the proposed group, and won't
> simply provide a few weeks extra bickering to come up with something pretty
> similar to what is currently proposed, then you can say "No", or "ROD" if
> that's available.
>
> If on the other hand that in the same way the committee in Greenwich
> reckoned you were a suitable moderator, the group selected is likely to be
> suitable, then you can say "Yes".
>
> It's exactly the same process. If Ian's statement is true for the proposed
> urcm panel (and some will claim it is), it's true for your selection.
> Whether or not this is a problem is a different question - in both cases I
> don't think it is, but that's just my POV.
>
> (Of course merely believing the panel should be elected shouldn't be a
> reason to vote "No", if that panel is sufficiently similar to what you'd
> have voted for anyway.)
>
> You've said you believe the recent surge of enthusiasm has made the need for
> urcm redundant. I disagree, and urge you to reconsider, without your
> mischievous troll-wrestling hat on. I know you enjoy baiting Judith et al,
> but I'm afraid if this proposal doesn't succeed, that's getting on for all
> you'll be able to do in the future. The people who have reappeared will
> drift away again, and the group will remain appearing hostile to new
> posters, which will result in a continued decline.
>
I have just got back from my annual summer( what summer) tour -- Rotterdam to
Berlin -- and so I had a look in here to see what was or wasn't happening wrt
urcm..
I said months ago that I would not post here again and this is intended to be
a 1of intrusion.
I had heard about proposals for urcm from other sources before I left and had
hoped that by this time some form of agreed action would be in hand.
But no!
I have spent an hour trying to unwind and understand all the endless wrangling
that is going on. To little avail!
urc seems as full of rubbish as it was 6 or more months ago together with
new ( to me) posters reiterating all the same arguments and discussions which
get absolutely nowhere.
If there is to be a vote on a "urcm" how do I get to vote on it and indeed how
can any such vote be realistically carried out. Who controls the electoral
roll!
Surely it could be set up and those that don't like it could stay here to
witness urc's continuing slide down the slippery slope to its ultimate demise
as a cycling group. It seems sensible to me that urcm could be set up and with
the help of reasonable folk it could grow and adjust. It would seem also
sensible to appoint moderators with a broad sweep of known opinions. If you
have been on here for any length of time then most people will know how you
behave in most circumstances. I know that I myself have pet "high horse"
positions which are almost certain to develop into a "rant" -- but most of the
time I manage to do my rant and then delete it before posting.
I have already aid far to much
I shall keep an eye on urc for a little while but I shall not enter into the
fray. I have no intention or maintaining a presence here ever again.
My vote is that urcm should be set up asp and all this shilly-shallying be
curtailed.
--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Nigel Cliffe
> I have just got back from my annual summer( what summer) tour --
> Rotterdam to Berlin -- and so I had a look in here to see what was or
> wasn't happening wrt urcm..
Nice to hear from you, hope the trip was good.
> I said months ago that I would not post here again and this is
> intended to be a 1of intrusion.
I remember, and am sorry you went, but understood the reasons.
> If there is to be a vote on a "urcm" how do I get to vote on it and
> indeed how can any such vote be realistically carried out. Who
> controls the electoral roll!
The vote happens as follows; after the period for discussion, the proposer
(Ian Jackson) ask Control, and the UK committee, to move the discussion to a
vote. In theory that can happen now.
Then the votetakers are appointed, and a formal "Call for Votes" (CFV)
posting is made to uk.net.news.announce, and I would expect it to be copied
to uk.rec.cycling and uk.net.news.config.
Votes are submitted using instructions in the CFV, usually by email.
Voting is open for about two to three weeks, then there is a short period to
deal with any objections. Thereafter, if the vote is in favour, the group
gets created.
There is no registration for the electoral role. Anyone may vote. There
are measures to stop people voting twice - if multiple identities are used
by misguided/malicious individuals it won't be the first time it has
happened, the vote-takers will be prepared.
I hope this helps, very fine details may be incorrect, but it saves long
reading of various official documents.
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Trevor A Panther
"Nigel Cliffe" <inv...@2mm.org.uk> wrote in message
news:h2mu9a$u0s$1...@news.albasani.net...
Tks for that response. Concise and gives me most of what I needed to know!
Appreciated.
I shall keep an eye on urc as I have continued to do over the last several
months
chris French
Panther <ta...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> writes
>
>
>I have just got back from my annual summer( what summer) tour --
>Rotterdam to Berlin
Enjoyable I hope ?
>-- and so I had a look in here to see what was or wasn't happening wrt
>urcm..
>
>I said months ago that I would not post here again and this is intended
>to be a 1of intrusion.
>
>I had heard about proposals for urcm from other sources before I left
>and had hoped that by this time some form of agreed action would be in
>hand.
>
It is pretty much there now I imagine.
>But no!
>
>I have spent an hour trying to unwind and understand all the endless
>wrangling that is going on. To little avail!
>
Hmm, probably rather a lot to digest in one sitting :-)
>
>If there is to be a vote on a "urcm" how do I get to vote on it and
>indeed how can any such vote be realistically carried out. Who controls
>the electoral roll!
<http://www.usenet.org.uk/voting.html>
Basically, Ian Jackson will post a Call For Votes (CFV) re the creation
of urcm (very soon I imagine). People vote following the instructions -
a few weeks later we get the result.
>
>I shall keep an eye on urc for a little while but I shall not enter
>into the fray. I have no intention or maintaining a presence here ever
>again.
>
>My vote is that urcm should be set up asp and all this shilly-shallying
>be curtailed.
>
Keep and eye out for the CFV, vote and keep your fingers crossed then
:-))
--
Chris French
Andy Leighton
Trevor A Panther <ta...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I had heard about proposals for urcm from other sources before I left and
> had hoped that by this time some form of agreed action would be in hand.
>
> But no!
The process grinds exceedinly slowly but exceedingly fine. There was
always going to be some people who spoke up against a new moderated
group which meant it couldn't really go through a fast-track.
> If there is to be a vote on a "urcm" how do I get to vote on it and
> indeed how can any such vote be realistically carried out.
> Who controls the electoral roll!
Well in a few days time there will be a CFV article posted to urc and
unnc with instructions on how to vote. Halfway through the vote a
second CFV will be issued in case people miss the first.
Basically anyone who reads the groups posted to (or who have been
pointed at the CFV by others) may vote. The team who take the vote
are pretty good at spotting malfeasance - people voting multiple times
using different email addresses. This invalidates all their votes.
> Surely it could be set up and those that don't like it could stay here to
> witness urc's continuing slide down the slippery slope to its ultimate
> demise as a cycling group.
Absolutely. The old group will remain and any who want to wallow in the
filth can still do so. Some on points of principle don't like the idea
of there being a moderated group and will vote no. Some think that
there will be enough people move over to the moderated group and that
the current group will wither away. They will also vote no.
> I shall keep an eye on urc for a little while but I shall not enter into the
> fray. I have no intention or maintaining a presence here ever again.
>
> My vote is that urcm should be set up asp and all this shilly-shallying be
> curtailed.
It is very close now. Watch out for the CFV and get your vote in early.
--
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_
Geoff Berrow
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>Well in a few days time there will be a CFV article posted to urc and
>unnc with instructions on how to vote. Halfway through the vote a
>second CFV will be issued in case people miss the first.
>
>Basically anyone who reads the groups posted to (or who have been
>pointed at the CFV by others) may vote.
IMPORTANT.
Please don't take this as an invitation to solicit for votes. You can
point people at the discussion and CFV but please do not tell them how
to vote.
Andy Leighton
Thanks, I forget that some people are less than honest about these
things. I added my bit in parenthesis as Trevor (the OP), amongst
others, used to read URC but left due to the noise/trolling.
Also to reiterate Geoff's point (as a parallel discussion on the a
false representation of the RFD was started in an unrelated group)
you may only point people at the CFV. You should not repost the
CFV elsewhere, either verbatim or reworded, or post voting instructions
without the verbiage, whether you tell people how to vote or not. There
are probably other ways of being naughty as well - my advice is not to
try.
I'm not sure why someone would try an organise a campaign of 'no' votes
from outside the potential readership of the new group (or indeed why
those people would vote) but it has already been hinted at by judith
during 2nd RFD. I am sure that everyone is going to be keeping a very
close watch for malfeasance.
Trevor A Panther
"Geoff Berrow" <blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ig2u45pd6f70bvcfm...@4ax.com...
No one is telling me how to vote
My intention is absolutely clear and my mind fixed many months ago
I shall not post again on this topic or on urc
Keitht
The chickens have grown up already.
There has been so much discussion it's fairly easy to see how most will
vote without any need for campaign buses (or bikes).
Andy Leighton
> news:ig2u45pd6f70bvcfm...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:25:16 -0500, Andy Leighton
>> <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Well in a few days time there will be a CFV article posted to urc and
>>>unnc with instructions on how to vote. Halfway through the vote a
>>>second CFV will be issued in case people miss the first.
>>>
>>>Basically anyone who reads the groups posted to (or who have been
>>>pointed at the CFV by others) may vote.
>>
>> IMPORTANT.
>>
>> Please don't take this as an invitation to solicit for votes. You can
>> point people at the discussion and CFV but please do not tell them how
>> to vote.
>
> No one is telling me how to vote
>
> My intention is absolutely clear and my mind fixed many months ago
>
> I shall not post again on this topic or on urc
Trevor, I think that was a clarification to my point, a general warning
to everyone (well a certain somebody who may try and organise something).
It was quite clear that you were eager for the vote and had made up your
mind from your post - as have most residents (and ex-residents) of URC.
Nuxx Bar
wrote:
>
> It would seem also
> sensible to appoint moderators with a broad sweep of known opinions.
Then you'll be voting against the proposal. The "moderation" panel
has been hand-picked by Ian Jackson to ensure that they are all his
friends, and that they're all "on message" in the key ways.
Furthermore, those would-be "moderators" have been having cosy
discussions behind closed doors, where they can be honest with each
other about the real motives behind Jackson's proposal: to censor
certain points of view, which some people don't like reading, because
they know they can't refute them but they don't want them to be true
(and rather than growing up and accepting reality, they'd prefer to
shoot the messenger whenever someone tries to tell it like it is).
Anyone who genuinely wants to sort out the problems in URC has to
realise that censorship dressed up as "moderation" won't help things,
it'll just make things worse. Far better to get rid of the fanatical
car-haters who are pretending to be "pro-cycling", and those who are
intolerant of other people's points of view (i.e. the very attitude
which is behind the URCM proposal). That is the only way to get a
proper, non-controversial newsgroup about recreational cycling in the
UK, so anyone who genuinely wants such a thing will vote against the
proposal and set about getting rid of the problem posters identified
above.
Nuxx Bar
wrote:
>
> My intention is absolutely clear and my mind fixed many months ago
Ah. Says it all really. You don't care whether the moderation's
going to be fair, or about anything else that's been discussed, you
just want to censor those pesky irrefutable opinions ASAP.
Nuxx Bar
How do you know? Have you been having private discussions with the
other "moderators"? Why can you not have such discussions in the
public threads? Is it so that you can be honest with each other about
the real reason for URCM: to censor particular points of view, which
some people don't like reading because they don't want them to be true
but they can't refute them?
What possible reason could there be for keeping discussions about
URCM, which is supposed to be for everyone, secret?
Nuxx Bar
wrote:
>
Oh look, a post from the future. Are you able to go further into the
future and tell us whether URCM passes the vote (and, if so, whether
it'll be a success, as if there's any question whatsoever in my mind)?
jms
<ta...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>I said months ago that I would not post here again and this is intended to be
>a 1of intrusion.
<snip>
> I have no intention or maintaining a presence here ever again.
We'll bear that in mind.
jms
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
<snip>
> but it has already been hinted at by judith
>during 2nd RFD. I am sure that everyone is going to be keeping a very
>close watch for malfeasance.
Sorry - are you suggesting that I have done/said/promised something I
should not have (only regarding this matter of course :-)
Surely the vote is open to *everyone*.
If, for example, people in uk.transport, and uk.rec.driving feared
that this would be a new forum for slagging off "cagers" (as you like
to call them) - with their replies being censored - then they could
vote against the proposal? Is that not the case?
What if people with experience of other moderated groups which failed
are strongly against moderation - can they not vote on the proposal?
I hope that I am correct - and the censorship is not starting early.
jms
<ta...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>I shall not post again on this topic or on urc
as indeed - he had said earlier today:
>I said months ago that I would not post here again and this is intended to be a 1of intrusion.
and then
> I have no intention or maintaining a presence here ever again.
Excellent - look forward to it.
jms
excellent - well spotted.
Did you like that post of mine tomorrow?
Chapman was a dab-hand at doing odd things to his web pages - both in
the past - and also in the future.
Andy Leighton
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:07:52 -0500, Andy Leighton
><an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> but it has already been hinted at by judith
>>during 2nd RFD. I am sure that everyone is going to be keeping a very
>>close watch for malfeasance.
>
>
> Sorry - are you suggesting that I have done/said/promised something I
> should not have (only regarding this matter of course :-)
You strongly implied that there would be quite a few voting from
uk.rec.driving and uk.transport. As the CFV doesn't get posted to those
places how do you think that they will know about it. Steve Firth is
(I think) the only denizen of those places to have taken an active
interest in the RFD process and although he is a contrary bugger, and
is I feel prone to over-literalism and pettiness, I believe that he
wouldn't get involved whipping up a vote from those places as I think
he believes in the RFD/CFV process.
> Surely the vote is open to *everyone*.
>
> If, for example, people in uk.transport, and uk.rec.driving feared
> that this would be a new forum for slagging off "cagers" (as you like
> to call them) - with their replies being censored - then they could
> vote against the proposal? Is that not the case?
They could, but they would either be stupid or grossly misinformed to
believe that. It has been made abundantly clear that that isn't the
case* during the RFD discussions. In fact if someone suggested that
urcm would be such a place and also pointed people at the CFV I would
view that as periously close to soliciting for NO votes and would issue
an official complaint.
In fact uk.transport and uk.rec.driving denizens should be happy about
urcm - the reason is we would *not* allow cross-posts into their groups.
Of course a few might still remain in urc and cross-post but the new
group would be of no threat in that aspect.
> What if people with experience of other moderated groups which failed
> are strongly against moderation - can they not vote on the proposal?
They certainly can. But then again why should they if it is a group in
which they have no interest? I don't follow CFVs but I am sure that
someone who does will be able to tell us if there are a core of anti-
moderation people who always vote NO when a moderated group is proposed.
* Whilst I am sure that there will be the odd post criticising individual
drivers and driving culture, I am positive that there are similar posts
(but with different language) in both those groups criticising people
who cut them up, middle-lane hoggers, taxi and bus drivers and even
cyclists.
David Kemper
"Andy Leighton" <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message
news:slrnh4utlp...@azaal.plus.com...
>
> You strongly implied that there would be quite a few voting from
> uk.rec.driving and uk.transport. As the CFV doesn't get posted to those
> places how do you think that they will know about it. Steve Firth is
> (I think) the only denizen of those places to have taken an active
> interest in the RFD process and although he is a contrary bugger, and
> is I feel prone to over-literalism and pettiness, I believe that he
> wouldn't get involved whipping up a vote from those places as I think
> he believes in the RFD/CFV process.
I also frequent (usually as a lurker) uk.transport, uk.railway, uk.rec
motorcycles as well as urc.
I intend voting no to the creation of urcm.
I suspect others in those ngs may also be following the process.
There have been mentions of the moderated group debate in uk.t & ukrm
They may want to vote too.
--
David Kemper
Andy Bonwick
If they want to be moderated then they deserve everything they get.
Andy Leighton
quietly dropped unnc - which isn't very polite) but I will keep them
in for now but not followups set to remove them..
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 17:59:28 +0100,
David Kemper <david....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> "Andy Leighton" <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnh4utlp...@azaal.plus.com...
>>
>> You strongly implied that there would be quite a few voting from
>> uk.rec.driving and uk.transport. As the CFV doesn't get posted to those
>> places how do you think that they will know about it. Steve Firth is
>> (I think) the only denizen of those places to have taken an active
>> interest in the RFD process and although he is a contrary bugger, and
>> is I feel prone to over-literalism and pettiness, I believe that he
>> wouldn't get involved whipping up a vote from those places as I think
>> he believes in the RFD/CFV process.
>
> I also frequent (usually as a lurker) uk.transport, uk.railway, uk.rec
> motorcycles as well as urc.
I didn't know.
> I intend voting no to the creation of urcm.
That is fair enough. I am not saying that those who have been following
the discussion shouldn't vote - just that people shouldn't try and whip
a vote from any newsgroups but especially from newsgroups to which the
CFV isn't posted. Also the discussion shouldn't be misrepresented
either.
> I suspect others in those ngs may also be following the process.
> There have been mentions of the moderated group debate in uk.t & ukrm
> They may want to vote too.
Sure. If they have read about it and are interested in voting I would
ask them to read the discussion - probably the initial 2nd RFD post
and a sampling of what follows. Of course if they have been following
the discussion then they are well placed for voting on the merits of
the proposal.
One of the points that may be in the groups favour is that cross-posts
to uk.t and ukrm, which some are worried about, will be banned. That's
right, if Doug does make ukrcm his regular newsgroup he can't crosspost
between ukrcm and your groups. Of course he might continue to use the
old urc in which case it would be status quo. So I can't promise that
you definitely will be rid of him.
If you couldn't give a toss about a moderated cycling group then please
accept my apologies for intruding.
Wm...
uk.net.news.config Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com>
>They certainly can. But then again why should they if it is a group in
>which they have no interest? I don't follow CFVs but I am sure that
>someone who does will be able to tell us if there are a core of anti-
>moderation people who always vote NO when a moderated group is proposed.
Not that I have noticed. Individuals from the unnc end have opinions
about moderation but get one vote same as always. I think, in general,
you should expect unnc people to vote on merit.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
jms
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>unnc added back in. I'm not sure why you added the other groups (and
>quietly dropped unnc - which isn't very polite) but I will keep them
>in for now but not followups set to remove them..
Snipped groups put back in.
You must accept that there may be other groups who are interested in
the formation of urcm - and they have a right to vote - even if they
have not been following the "debate" in detail.
They may have their own reasons for not wanting a moderated cycle
group.
They will almost certainly have *met* some of the urc posters
previously.
For example, some may be of the opinion that if say Mr Chapman is in
favour of the moderated group - and they have been on the receiving
end of his barbed comments, offensive language etc etc - his hate of
motorists and the intolerance he has shown in urc to get engaged in
sensible debate with "trolls" they may think that it *will* become
very biased against motorists and any effective right of reply will be
censored.
They may not want people saying things about them which they will not
be able to respond to.
Surely people are "allowed" to inform other groups that this vote is
taking place; and they are "allowed" to urge them to vote one way or
another?
People in general may even be concerned about the actions of some of
the proposed moderators, the way that the moderation team have been
hand-picked - despite sensible alternatives.
In the previous discussion Braggins (proposed moderator) forged a
post such that it incorrectly attributed words to someone which they
had not said.
Some people may think this is unacceptable action by a moderator - can
he be trusted. They will not have the option of voting against him -
so they must vote again's the formation of the group.
It may not be fair - but it may be pay-back time by some people. You
know, those people who were the subject of many forged posts; those
people who were the subject of private e-mails warning off other
people responding to them.
There may be many reason why individuals are against the formation of
the new group.
Andy Leighton
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:37:59 -0500, Andy Leighton
><an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>unnc added back in. I'm not sure why you added the other groups (and
>>quietly dropped unnc - which isn't very polite) but I will keep them
>>in for now but not followups set to remove them..
>
> Snipped groups put back in.
Fair enough - but I hope those groups don't mind this off-topic
chatter.
> You must accept that there may be other groups who are interested in
> the formation of urcm - and they have a right to vote - even if they
> have not been following the "debate" in detail.
Absolutely - although if they do vote it might be sensible to read
up some about what they will be voting on. But the 2nd RFD would be
good to read as they could see an appropriate summary of the discussion
from the 1st RFD. There will be another summary of the discussion that
followed 2nd RFD when the CFV is posted. As time before CFV is short
if they have any questions or issues then they should speak up now.
> They may have their own reasons for not wanting a moderated cycle
> group.
>
> They will almost certainly have *met* some of the urc posters
> previously.
Maybe so but they will be unlikely to meet him again if the group
goes ahead as cross-posting between ucrm and their groups will not
be allowed.
> For example, some may be of the opinion that if say Mr Chapman is in
> favour of the moderated group - and they have been on the receiving
> end of his barbed comments, offensive language etc etc - his hate of
> motorists and the intolerance he has shown in urc to get engaged in
> sensible debate with "trolls" they may think that it *will* become
> very biased against motorists and any effective right of reply will be
> censored.
You are obviously continuing with this fantasy that the new group will
be full of anti-motoring diatribes. It won't. There will be the
odd rant at some clueless twonk and at road-policy where it makes
cycling less safe. But can you deny that drivers often rant at clueless
twonks as well, and certainly rant about cyclists taking up the road.
I would also note the offensive language was not as one sided as you
portray. I think there was far more coming back at all cyclists from
some of the disruptive posters.
At present there are very few (if any) cases of posters from uk.t and urd
chasing Guy up in urc and claiming foul play. So it doesn't seem a
very likely scenario for the future now does it?
> They may not want people saying things about them which they will not
> be able to respond to.
About them? Can you think of a thread in which individuals from any
of the groups were abused out of the blue? In any case personal abuse
is against the moderation policy as you know full well.
> Surely people are "allowed" to inform other groups that this vote is
> taking place; and they are "allowed" to urge them to vote one way or
> another?
Reread Geoff Berrow's message earlier in this thread. Geoff knows far
more about this than me but I would consider urging someone to vote
in a particular way to be soliciting. Trying to organise a mass NO
vote from a group (or groups) not on the distribution for the CFV would
almost definitely be viewed so.
If you are seriously considering the above 'tactic' then please don't.
> People in general may even be concerned about the actions of some of
> the proposed moderators, the way that the moderation team have been
> hand-picked - despite sensible alternatives.
Like who? You have been asked this before - who are the sensible
alternatives who would stand. Anyway it doesn't matter now, you
are too late, you had your chance to speak up earlier in the discussion.
> In the previous discussion Braggins (proposed moderator) forged a
> post such that it incorrectly attributed words to someone which they
> had not said.
You must distinguish between when someone is acting in an individual
capacity and in their capacity as a moderator.
> Some people may think this is unacceptable action by a moderator - can
> he be trusted. They will not have the option of voting against him -
> so they must vote again's the formation of the group.
If they don't read the group now, and have no intention of reading the
group then who individual moderators are isn't really relevant to them
is it? Or do you think that there is a huge subsection of uk.t and urd
who are secret cyclists who would love to join in but are scared by the
big boys?
> It may not be fair - but it may be pay-back time by some people. You
> know, those people who were the subject of many forged posts;
Someone pretended to by Guy. I remember he took to using PGP for a while
to indicate his real ones. Phil Lee had some problems too. A few more
cyclists did. Lou Knee definitely did.
> those
> people who were the subject of private e-mails warning off other
> people responding to them.
Why shouldn't people warn others of what they perceive as disruptive
posters and request them not to make the situation worse - and I
think you would agree that you (after all you threatened to turn the
group to ratshit) and Nuxx are disruptive posters even if you dare not
use the T word.
jms
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
<snip>
> (after all you threatened to turn the
>group to ratshit)
Oh really - you will of course be able to point out this "threat".
Jim Newman
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:37:59 -0500, Andy Leighton
> <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> unnc added back in. I'm not sure why you added the other groups (and
>> quietly dropped unnc - which isn't very polite) but I will keep them
>> in for now but not followups set to remove them..
>
> Snipped groups put back in.
>
Liar - you didn't 'put back in' any groups.
Andrew Halliwell
Followups were set to 2 groups. He ignored the followup-to line and posted
to all groups again, so in effect, yes, he did.
--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| spi...@freenet.co.uk |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|
jms
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
<snip fair comment>
>
>
>* Whilst I am sure that there will be the odd post criticising individual
>drivers and driving culture, I am positive that there are similar posts
>(but with different language) in both those groups criticising people
>who cut them up, middle-lane hoggers, taxi and bus drivers and even
>cyclists.
Such things will be stated with impunity and with glee - knowing that
there will be *no* reply.
I am not as convinced as you are that the moderated group will be
treating all people in the same way.
Groups of people will be censored.
uk.transport and uk.rec.driving are already aware of the process (as
I told them).
They may be lurking here - taking it all in.
I do not see why anyone should not solicit votes either way from those
groups which *may* have an interest.
I do not think it is "not allowed" - do you?
What would be the subject of the "official complaint" to which you
refer - and what would be the purpose of it.
I will guarantee now that there will be posts made to the moderated
group referring to motorists (or "cagers" as I think you call them
when you wish to wind them up) which will not mention cycling at all
but which will be allowed.
eg "Subject : Motorist kills child"
When you read the article you read that a child ran in to the road.
This will however permit such as the following:
"I see another cager has killed a small child ........."
Feel free to disagree.
I suppose you would say that whilst the article does not mention
cyclists, it is obviously of interest to them - and that will always
be the get out.
Andy Leighton
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:35:21 -0500, Andy Leighton
><an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
><snip fair comment>
>
>
>>
>>
>>* Whilst I am sure that there will be the odd post criticising individual
>>drivers and driving culture, I am positive that there are similar posts
>>(but with different language) in both those groups criticising people
>>who cut them up, middle-lane hoggers, taxi and bus drivers and even
>>cyclists.
>
> Such things will be stated with impunity and with glee - knowing that
> there will be *no* reply.
Of course there can be reply - as long as it is polite, civil and
relevant to cycling.
> uk.transport and uk.rec.driving are already aware of the process (as
> I told them).
As long as you have merely told them about the process and pointed them
at the discussions that is OK.
> I do not see why anyone should not solicit votes either way from those
> groups which *may* have an interest.
>
> I do not think it is "not allowed" - do you?
>
> What would be the subject of the "official complaint" to which you
> refer - and what would be the purpose of it.
I think if you are soliciting for a particular vote then that isn't
allowed. Certainly if there was a suggestion that you were trying
to whip in a NO vote from these groups (which aren't really interested
in cycling) then I would complain.
> I will guarantee now that there will be posts made to the moderated
> group referring to motorists (or "cagers" as I think you call them
> when you wish to wind them up)
I'm sure there will be posts that refer to motorists and cagers and
also lycra louts and pobs. People tend to use silly names for all
kinds of groups amongst themselves.
> which will not mention cycling at all but which will be allowed.
>
> eg "Subject : Motorist kills child"
>
> When you read the article you read that a child ran in to the road.
> This will however permit such as the following:
>
> "I see another cager has killed a small child ........."
>
> Feel free to disagree.
I probably wouldn't accept such a post unless there was some relevance to
cycling/cyclists/group members - if we did we would get one a week and
would be fairly repetitious. There are a number of scenarios in which I
would accept such a post without question but I do not wish to go into
detail as it may allow people to game the system.
However as it is factually correct I am sure you should have no problems
with it - after all that is the argument you used for your potential sig
isn't it?
jms
wrote:
I can see that you are not very bright.
Has your post above and this gone to:
"uk.rec.cycling,uk.net.news.config,uk.transport,uk.rec.driving,uk.rec.motorcycles"
In fact - I have now taken them out.
Did they jump back in on their own?
Noted before - you always creep back in here to have a go at me.
Did you ever say what your usual urc posting name was?
Still - I suppose you hope to get a couple of votes by "returning" as
"Jim"
(Weren't you the only person who managed to read Chapman's web page
*before* he altered it? I seem to recollect something like that. He
never did explain it you know)
jms
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:02:37 +0100, jms <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:35:21 -0500, Andy Leighton
>><an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>><snip fair comment>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>* Whilst I am sure that there will be the odd post criticising individual
>>>drivers and driving culture, I am positive that there are similar posts
>>>(but with different language) in both those groups criticising people
>>>who cut them up, middle-lane hoggers, taxi and bus drivers and even
>>>cyclists.
>>
>> Such things will be stated with impunity and with glee - knowing that
>> there will be *no* reply.
>
>Of course there can be reply - as long as it is polite, civil and
>relevant to cycling.
>
>> uk.transport and uk.rec.driving are already aware of the process (as
>> I told them).
>
>As long as you have merely told them about the process and pointed them
>at the discussions that is OK.
I think I may have pointed them in the direction of a NO vote. Was I
"wrong" to do that?
>I think if you are soliciting for a particular vote then that isn't
>allowed. Certainly if there was a suggestion that you were trying
>to whip in a NO vote from these groups (which aren't really interested
>in cycling) then I would complain.
I think that when cyclists are slagging off motorists and uk.tosspots
(I believe that is a term of "endearment" which you and others use) -
saying things like - "the motorist is always to blame in an accident
with a cyclist" (which has been said) that they may be interested and
want to express a point of view.
>I'm sure there will be posts that refer to motorists and cagers and
>also lycra louts and pobs. People tend to use silly names for all
>kinds of groups amongst themselves.
Cyclists can call themselves what they like - when they start talking
about "cagers" and "tosspots" "licensed murderers" - then that should
not be allowed.
It will be.
>> which will not mention cycling at all but which will be allowed.
>>
>> eg "Subject : Motorist kills child"
>>
>> When you read the article you read that a child ran in to the road.
>> This will however permit such as the following:
>>
>> "I see another cager has killed a small child ........."
>>
>> Feel free to disagree.
>
>I probably wouldn't accept such a post unless there was some relevance to
>cycling/cyclists/group members - if we did we would get one a week and
>would be fairly repetitious.
But of course anyone on the whitelist would be able to say it "with
impunity and with glee"
>However as it is factually correct I am sure you should have no problems
>with it - after all that is the argument you used for your potential sig
>isn't it?
Not the same sunshine - and herein lies a problem if you think they
are.
All of the sigs I have used are directly relevant to cycling.
(Unless they were correcting Chapman of course - which I would expect
to be banned in the new group anyway).
To be clear - I would expect any post which was a criticism of
motorists for the sake of that criticism - which referred to motorists
or others as cagers, tosspots, motorised murderers would be banned.
Unfortunately many of us can see that this will not be the case.
Andy Leighton
> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 06:16:36 -0500, Andy Leighton
><an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
> I think that when cyclists are slagging off motorists and uk.tosspots
> (I believe that is a term of "endearment" which you and others use) -
> saying things like - "the motorist is always to blame in an accident
> with a cyclist" (which has been said) that they may be interested and
> want to express a point of view.
That was a discussion about strict liability which is often
mischaracterised by people as your quote above. A google groups
search only shows your quote on urd and uk.t. Although the use
on uk.t was Steve Firth describing Doug's position - and for all
I know that could be a fair statement, Doug is pretty much at the
far end of the spectrum (and sometimes beyond that); he isn't typical.
I don't think people should judge a group by its nuttier posters do
you?
BTW - I don't think I have ever used tosspots.
>>I probably wouldn't accept such a post unless there was some relevance to
>>cycling/cyclists/group members - if we did we would get one a week and
>>would be fairly repetitious.
>
> But of course anyone on the whitelist would be able to say it "with
> impunity and with glee"
No. Not with impunity. Someone who abuses the whitelist can and will
be disciplined.
Mark Goodge
typed:
>On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 06:16:36 -0500, Andy Leighton
><an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:02:37 +0100, jms <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> uk.transport and uk.rec.driving are already aware of the process (as
>>> I told them).
>>
>>As long as you have merely told them about the process and pointed them
>>at the discussions that is OK.
>
>I think I may have pointed them in the direction of a NO vote. Was I
>"wrong" to do that?
Broadly speaking, yes. It's generally considered an abuse of process
to solicit votes for or against a particular position from those who
haven't seen the main discussion itself in unnc.
Obviously, you are fully entitled to take a partisan position within
the main discussion, and if you think it will help your cause then
there's nothing wrong with going to other groups and inviting them to
subscribe to unnc so that they, too, can participate in the dicussion
and see your opinions there. But trying to persuade people to vote one
way or the other without having seen the main discussion (and hence
without seeing both sides of the argument) isn't acceptable. If such
actions appear to have unduly influenced the result then it may be
declared void, so that kind of canvassing doesn't actually help you at
all.
>>I'm sure there will be posts that refer to motorists and cagers and
>>also lycra louts and pobs. People tend to use silly names for all
>>kinds of groups amongst themselves.
>
>Cyclists can call themselves what they like - when they start talking
>about "cagers" and "tosspots" "licensed murderers" - then that should
>not be allowed.
I don't think "cager" is a particularly offensive term. "Tosspot", of
course, can refer to anyone, whatever mode of transport they use.
"Licensed murderers" is, of course, factually inaccurate and anyone
who uses it as a generic term for motorists is an idiot, but it isn't
the job of the charter or the moderators to prevent people from making
idiots of themselves.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
jms
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:25:07 +0100, jms <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 06:16:36 -0500, Andy Leighton
>><an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think that when cyclists are slagging off motorists and uk.tosspots
>> (I believe that is a term of "endearment" which you and others use) -
>> saying things like - "the motorist is always to blame in an accident
>> with a cyclist" (which has been said) that they may be interested and
>> want to express a point of view.
>
>That was a discussion about strict liability which is often
>mischaracterised by people as your quote above.
I was using it just as an example to demonstrate the point.
>I don't think people should judge a group by its nuttier posters do
>you?
Indeed no - there are many sensible posters in urc, me and you
included. I do however think there is only one Chapman - and not many
people have modeled their actions on him
>
>No. Not with impunity. Someone who abuses the whitelist can and will
>be disciplined.
Yes of course they will.
How many mistakes will they be allowed to make?
Will this fact that someone has been disciplined be in the public
domain?
If not - why not? - ( it would give more confidence if it was.)
If someone breaks the rules - then I want it to be absolutely clear -
and in the public domain - that this has happened. Otherwise there
will be more valid criticisms that the rules are being applied in
different ways for different people.
Can we have a clear answer on how the "publication" of misdemeanours
will be dealt with please; or is this another which is too precise and
hence cannot be answered at this time - wait until the group is formed
(ie will never be answered)
kat
jms said:
>
>
> I think I may have pointed them in the direction of a NO vote. Was I
> "wrong" to do that?
>
Yes.
--
kat
>^..^<
Percy Picacity
news:71m3559gkl5fl5l7m...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 10:35:21 -0500, Andy Leighton
><an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
><snip fair comment>
>
>
>>
>>
>>* Whilst I am sure that there will be the odd post criticising
>>individual drivers and driving culture, I am positive that there
>>are similar posts (but with different language) in both those
>>groups criticising people who cut them up, middle-lane hoggers,
>>taxi and bus drivers and even cyclists.
>
> Such things will be stated with impunity and with glee - knowing
> that there will be *no* reply.
>
Unless the denizens of the car groups are completely mad I do not
suppose that they will be in the least concerned that, in another
part of usenet, some people are obsessively anti-car, and want to
discuss how nasty motorised transport is among themselves. (Not that
I thinkd urcm will be like that, but even if it were ...) There are
quite a lot of newsgroups in the world, and it will usually be
possible to find one in which any given bizarre idea is being
discussed, few of us will wish to rush there to fire-fight it.
I've got an idea for you: why not search the whole of the Google
news archive for the last six months for mention of cycle helmets or
speed cameras (in any language of course), and then go and reply to
every post you find which deviates from the One True Opinion. You
might find yourself with a mission for life.
--
Percy Picacity
JNugent
> jms <moderat...@live.co.uk> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> Sorry - are you suggesting that I have done/said/promised something I
>> should not have (only regarding this matter of course :-)
> You strongly implied that there would be quite a few voting from
> uk.rec.driving and uk.transport. As the CFV doesn't get posted to those
> places how do you think that they will know about it. Steve Firth is
> (I think) the only denizen of those places to have taken an active
> interest in the RFD process and although he is a contrary bugger, and
> is I feel prone to over-literalism and pettiness, I believe that he
> wouldn't get involved whipping up a vote from those places as I think
> he believes in the RFD/CFV process.
I am subscribed to both of those groups (have been for a long time), though
there isn't much going on there these days.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>I am subscribed to both of those groups (have been for a long time), though
>there isn't much going on there these days.
And you are probably capable of alerting them to any discussion
without feeling the need to lie and solicit particular votes in the
process.
jms
for clarification: despite the intention to appear so - the original
post was not from me.
It was from someone trying to blacken my name - I cannot guess who -
someone who is despicable.
Any ideas?
(Oh ... sorry .... ?)
Percy Picacity
news:pbb955dsqnvt31453...@4ax.com:
This repeated statement is rapidly nearing the degree of repetition
where it might be defined as cancellable spam.
--
Percy Picacity
Steve Firth
> It was from someone trying to blacken my name
You would have to have a name that could be blackened. Since you've made
an arse of yourself since you started posting to usenet as "judith" you
don't have a reputation that can be besmirched.
jms
wrote:
Talking of name:
Why thank you Filth.
How's the job?
D.M. Procida
Oh, is this that Judith creature?
Daniele
--
Wanted: TEAC A-2300SX, Akai GX-4000D
Steve Firth
> How's the job?
I still have the best boss in the whole world as I have for the last
twenty years. No matter how many times I tell you this, you still pop up
with "How's the job?" which seems to be some attempt on your part to
prove what a clueless gonzo you are.
Do you have a job, or a life? Your posting history suggests that you
have neither.
Now do you want to get back to proving to the world at large that no
matter how badly you are portrayed you can't be made to look worse than
you are?
Marc
"We find in favour of the plaintiff and award the sum of one new pence
for their loss of good name and character!"?
Steve Firth
[snip]
> Oh, is this that Judith creature?
Yes, that's it. Still tilting at bicycles.
Steve Firth
Somehow I suspect Judith would set a new record for microscopic award of
damages. One pee sounds far too generous, in context.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>"We find in favour of the plaintiff and award the sum of one new pence
>for their loss of good name and character!"?
<pedant> penny - pence is plural </pedant>
Tim Hall
<initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>for their loss of good name and character!"? ^^^^^
One new _penny_, please. It's singular. Brown, when Chancellor,
announced in a budget speech he was increasing tax on something by "a
pence". Hanging's too good.
--
Tim
Just zis Guy, you know?
<tim...@nospamtoday.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>One new _penny_, please. It's singular. Brown, when Chancellor,
>announced in a budget speech he was increasing tax on something by "a
>pence". Hanging's too good.
He /what/? Mr Larrington, the gun, petrol, matches and Lighthouse
Family if you please. I have the ice-creams ready.
Peter Grange
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>Marc <initial...@btintenret.com> considered Wed, 08 Jul 2009
>Many reputations have become over valued since decimalisation.
>The groat would have been a better measure.
Although the groat went through many phases, I believe it was, in the
latter part of its existence, worth 4 old pence. One new penny is 2.4
old pence. Therefore a groat was actually worth more than a new penny.
Let's keep a sense of value here ;-)
--
Pete
Dave Larrington
Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
tell us:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> considered Wed, 08
> run the
> country.
FTFY
--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
"Leverage" is *not* a verb.
Rex M F Smith
<ph...@lee-family.me.invalid> writes
>Many reputations have become over valued since decimalisation.
>The groat would have been a better measure.
It was worth considerably more :-(
--
Rex M F Smith
Rex M F Smith
<tim...@nospamtoday.clara.co.uk> writes
>Brown, when Chancellor,
>announced in a budget speech he was increasing tax on something by "a
>pence". Hanging's too good.
English might not be his first language you know ...
jms
You may want to talk about shit like this in your new private group
when it is formed - however it is not really appropriate to unnc;
please try and restrict your discussions to the subject of the
proposed censored group.
You are however demonstrating admirably your inability to act like a
mature adult.
jms
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:32:12 +0100, Marc
><initial...@btintenret.com> wrote:
>
>>"We find in favour of the plaintiff and award the sum of one new pence
>>for their loss of good name and character!"?
>
><pedant> penny - pence is plural </pedant>
>
>Guy
Fascinating.
I bet you can't wait for the moderated group?
(Sorry ........ ?)
--
Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored