Fancy a bit of bullying?
Judith M Smith
You need to get over to uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
There is someone there posting as "thirty-six"; you can say what you
like to him and his posts. If you're a moderator there then you are
actually encouraged to take part in the fun.
You can tell him that what he says is bullshit - you can accuse him of
lying - you can call him names - anything goes.
Get in there - give him a kicking. It's jolly good fun.
As one of the more sensible posters there has said:
"
I'm puzzled why so many people are permitted:
* to refer to him, as an act of spite, by a name that he hasn't
chosen to be known as
* to adopt a hectoring, bullying tone in anything they say in
response to him
* to use abusive language ('childish', 'bulllshit', 'dishonest')
that is not conducive to a pleasant newsgroup
"
--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.
The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly vizible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
Percy Picacity
news:punlg519fq5koh5hv...@4ax.com:
> --
> Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their
> contempt for the Highway Code and laws.
>
> The answer:
> All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory
> insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly
> vizible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law
> breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT
> for the idea)
>
The logical extension of this is to crush the bodies of wayward
pedestrians - a sort of super-asbo.
--
Percy Picacity
Marc
will choose for the tattoo , if I remember correctly yellow stars, pink
, green, Red , brown , black and purple triangles are all allocated?
Judith M Smith
Hello Round - I notice that you are one of the offenders in the
moderated group. Like a bit of bullying do you?
What is this obsession that you have with bull-shit?
I suppose if *you* have been spouting it for years then it becomes
second nature.
As I said - you are obsessed with it - in that thread:
==========================================================
One of the unintended consequences of moderation is that bullshit can
be posted ( repeatedly and in different forms) without anyone being
able to say that it's bullshit! :-(
==========================================================
True, but saying you do not agree, is not the same as saying that
bullshit is bullshit.
==========================================================
But the original bullshit would still be there, with no-one pointing
out that it was bullshit.
==========================================================
Or that your previous statement was a load of b... was incorrect
as to it's accuracy?
==========================================================
I'm amazed that this sort .......................... is allowed to be
posted repeatedly, but that if anyone dared to mention that it was
complete................ and that the poster was talking
.................... then that post would not be allowed!
==========================================================
I'm sorry that you feel that way Daniele, however I'm ( and always
have been ) of the opionion that elephants ( especailly bull
elephants) in the corner of the room shouldn't be ignored and when
you smell excrement that comes from that direction then it's better
to point it out rather than stand knee deep in it pretending that it's
no happening.
==========================================================
But you consider Bu...... Sorry, I mean "incorrect and fanciful
opinions" are OK to be broadcast and then to be left unchallenged as
long as they are polite?
===========================================================
Your command of English does seem to be rather poor - an inability to
express yourself. Have you considered taking a GCSE - just to get
the basics right?
Sarah
"Judith M Smith" <judith...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:793mg592lbvpocu20...@4ax.com...
> Hello Round
Pot, Kettle, Black.
Judith M Smith
Hello "Sarah" - not seen you before. A change of name perhaps?
Did you not like me drawing attention to the antics of Round et al?
Feel free to explain what you mean.
Just have a read of the replies to thirty-six in the moderated group.
Any comments?
Sarah
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:14:18 -0000, "Sarah" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Judith M Smith" <judith...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:793mg592lbvpocu20...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Hello Round
>>
>>Pot, Kettle, Black.
>>
>>
>
>
> Hello "Sarah" - not seen you before. A change of name perhaps?
So?
Read your first post in this thread, then read your reply to my previous
post.
> Did you not like me drawing attention to the antics of Round et al?
Read your first post in this thread, then read your reply to my previous
post.
> Feel free to explain what you mean.
Pot, Kettle, Black.
Happi Monday
> Any comments?
Yes! Go discuss the other fucking group on the other fucking group -
geez, what a silly bitch you are Judy.
Simon Brooke
[Snip: troll wrestling]
Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It has no
possible relevance here.
--
stil...@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and
every moderation decision is unexplained and final.
Señor Chris
>
> Just have a read of the replies to thirty-six in the moderated group.
>
Could you point out some examples, please.
Happi Monday
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:59:25 +0000, Percy Picacity wrote:
>
> [Snip: troll wrestling]
>
> Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It has no
> possible relevance here.
Nor here (URC), so why did you cross-post to you silly fuckwit!
Tom Crispin
<stilly...@googlemail.com> wrote:
[Follow-ups set]
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:59:25 +0000, Percy Picacity wrote:
>
>[Snip: troll wrestling]
>
>Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It has no
>possible relevance here.
It is about alleged bullying in a moderated group. Unless you permit
the discussion in urcm, unnm is the right group.
jms
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>On 24 Nov 2009 14:11:47 GMT, Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:59:25 +0000, Percy Picacity wrote:
>>
>> [Snip: troll wrestling]
>>
>> Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It has no
>> possible relevance here.
>
>It certainly does have relevance to this jms troll thing shoving its shit
>in front of as many people as possible. Get a kill file and get a life.
>
>Tony
You seem to be a know it all.
Please advise of the correct group to discuss bullying and the
approach/encouragement of the moderators to that problem in a
moderated group.
Judith M Smith
wrote:
>Judith M Smith wrote:
>>
>> Just have a read of the replies to thirty-six in the moderated group.
>>
>
>Could you point out some examples, please.
Particularly the threads:
Biomechanics and crank length choices. Re: Dropouts
Lubricating a bicycle chain. 36
(Don't you read and post there under a different name?)
Judith M Smith
wrote:
You'd fit in very well over there with language like that.
Do you often have difficulty expressing yourself?
You are just like Round - his command of English is also limited -
have you considered private lessons?
If you are hard up, I could contribute a couple of quid.
Trevor A Panther
news:7n27t3F...@mid.individual.net...
so you troll wrestle here then Mr moderator
Go away from urc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
fu's set
--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Happi Monday
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:20:58 +0000, Happi Monday <ha...@munday.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Judith M Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Any comments?
>> Yes! Go discuss the other fucking group on the other fucking group -
>> geez, what a silly bitch you are Judy.
>
>
> You'd fit in very well over there with language like that.
>
> Do you often have difficulty expressing yourself?
>
> You are just like Round - his command of English is also limited -
> have you considered private lessons?
>
> If you are hard up, I could contribute a couple of quid.
Seems you understood me well enough.
Happi Monday
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:03:10 -0500, "The Anthony R. Gold thing "
> <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 24 Nov 2009 14:11:47 GMT, Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:59:25 +0000, Percy Picacity wrote:
>>>
>>> [Snip: troll wrestling]
>>>
>>> Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It has no
>>> possible relevance here.
>> It certainly does have relevance to this jms troll thing shoving its shit
>> in front of as many people as possible. Get a kill file and get a life.
>>
>> Tony
>
>
> You seem to be a know it all.
>
> Please advise of the correct group to discuss bullying and the
> approach/encouragement of the moderators to that problem in a
> moderated group.
Well it ain't here (URC) is it you silly f'ing prick!
Señor Chris
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:44:54 +0000, Se�or Chris <us...@domain.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Judith M Smith wrote:
>>> Just have a read of the replies to thirty-six in the moderated group.
>>>
>> Could you point out some examples, please.
>
> Particularly the threads:
>
> Biomechanics and crank length choices. Re: Dropouts
>
> Lubricating a bicycle chain. 36
>
If you are going to make serious allegations I think it only fair that
you provide some evidence. Author and date/time of posting will do.
> (Don't you read and post there under a different name?)
>
Which name would that be ?
Judith M Smith
wrote:
<snip>
>>> Could you point out some examples, please.
>>
>> Particularly the threads:
>>
>> Biomechanics and crank length choices. Re: Dropouts
>>
>> Lubricating a bicycle chain. 36
>>
>
>If you are going to make serious allegations I think it only fair that
>you provide some evidence. Author and date/time of posting will do.
I have pointed out the threads in question.
Why don't *you* have a read of those thread and then *you* state
whether everyone is being treated in the same fashion or not; and
whether some people are being bullied.
To really understand - you do need to read all posts in the threads in
order to carry out a fair assessment. (If you don't want to do this
and to be seen as fair and balanced - then of course don't bother to
do this).
If you do want to be fair and objective - then read the threads. I,
and others, will of course understand if that is not your objective.
If you believe that everyone is being treated equally and can state
that after you have read both threads - then I will be happy to point
out the posts which you have the inability to read and understand.
kat
Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> said
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:59:25 +0000, Percy Picacity wrote:
>
> [Snip: troll wrestling]
>
> Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It
> has no possible relevance here.
Where else is someone supposed to raise a query about moderation? If that
is not on topic in here I don't know what is.
--
kat
>^..^<
Keitht
(Removed the unnecessary shite x-post)
And the summary execution of any driver that dares go over the white
line at traffic lights.
Speeding offences will mean the driver's family taken in to custody as
ransom until the bugger pays up.
Any documentary issues - no licence, MOT, insewerants, tax disc will
result in both car and river to be crushed as they can't be trusted to
go out together without breaking the law.
(oddly enough it wasn't me that suggested the crushing of bikes - but I
could always steal another one and transfer the plates over - wonder
where I got that idea from - or just have another set of plates made up)
Sorted!
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
Keitht
> What is this obsession that you have with bull-shit?
>
(removed chicken-shit x-post)
Ah, a lesson on bullshit from our resident 9th Dan Black Belt on the
subject.
Sifu - we are all your students.
Enlighten us on the righteous path of bullshittery, we are not worthy,
we can never expect to reach the heights of your lifelong excellence in
bovine excreta.
Keitht
>
> Just have a read of the replies to thirty-six in the moderated group.
>
> Any comments?
>
(removed chicken-shit x-post)
How about 'You are barking'?
No comment on how 36 is unable to continue their evangelism over on urcm
so brings it here.
Nothing about how others from urcm are over here to continue the
discussions about wheels in terms you can understand.
So, why should you want to bring it here --unless it's just your usual
shit stirring to get your scores up.
Not enough hits on your 'posts'?
Fed up that not enough are replying to your jibes?
Wrong tree and the moon -- all at the same time.
Keitht
jms can't get on to the other group (though there are many socks in the
drawer). We were all told to fuck off to ucrm - but it now looks as if
envy is setting in.
Keitht
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:07:00 +0000, Se�or Chris <us...@domain.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Could you point out some examples, please.
>>> Particularly the threads:
>>>
>>> Biomechanics and crank length choices. Re: Dropouts
>>>
>>> Lubricating a bicycle chain. 36
>>>
>> If you are going to make serious allegations I think it only fair that
>> you provide some evidence. Author and date/time of posting will do.
>
>
> I have pointed out the threads in question.
>
> Why don't *you* have a read of those thread and then *you* state
> whether everyone is being treated in the same fashion or not; and
> whether some people are being bullied.
>
> To really understand - you do need to read all posts in the threads in
> order to carry out a fair assessment. (If you don't want to do this
> and to be seen as fair and balanced - then of course don't bother to
> do this).
>
> If you do want to be fair and objective - then read the threads. I,
> and others, will of course understand if that is not your objective.
>
> If you believe that everyone is being treated equally and can state
> that after you have read both threads - then I will be happy to point
> out the posts which you have the inability to read and understand.
>
(removed chicken-shit x-post)
Are you really so fucking sad that you have to monitor ng's you won't
even subscribe to and then broadcast what's apparently gong on with one
or two threads.
Barking at the moon again.
Pedt
Nov 2009, Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> wibbled
>Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It has no
>possible relevance here.
>
Since exactly when has unn.moderation been off-topic for discussing
moderation?
Since exactly when has the charter of uk.rec.cycling & .moderated been
modified to make it the place to discuss any uk.rec.cycling.moderated
possible issues with moderation?
Where *exactly* do you think any [potential] urcm moderation issues
should be discussed?
Judith may be mainly a pain in the proverbials but if she can back up
the original post with some Message-IDs rather than bare assertions then
it is possible she may have a point.
--
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>
d...@telent.net
> In message <7n27t3F...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:11:47 on Tue,
> 24 Nov 2009, Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> wibbled
>
>>Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It has no
>>possible relevance here.
>>
> Since exactly when has unn.moderation been off-topic for discussing
> moderation?
I think Simon was responding to Percy's post, which addressed the jms'
signature only and did not mention the body of her post. There did not
seem to be much discussion of moderation there.
-dan
Simon Brooke
I've followed this thread back as far as I can, and I can see no evidence
that it ever discussed moderation policy. Maybe it once did, but if so
that was before it arrived on uk.net.news.moderation; I don't read the
other group to which this thread is posted.
In any case neither this branch of the thread, not the post that I
followed up to, discussed moderation policy.
Simon Brooke
> In message <7n27t3F...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:11:47 on Tue, 24
> Nov 2009, Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> wibbled
>
>>Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It has
>>no possible relevance here.
>>
> Since exactly when has unn.moderation been off-topic for discussing
> moderation?
>
> Since exactly when has the charter of uk.rec.cycling & .moderated been
> modified to make it the place to discuss any uk.rec.cycling.moderated
> possible issues with moderation?
>
> Where *exactly* do you think any [potential] urcm moderation issues
> should be discussed?
I've seen no discussion of moderation policy in this thread. Can you
provide a message id of a post in which it was discussed?
The Wanderer
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:05:45 +0000, Pedt wrote:
>
>> In message <7n27t3F...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:11:47 on Tue, 24
>> Nov 2009, Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> wibbled
>>
>>>Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It has
>>>no possible relevance here.
>>>
>> Since exactly when has unn.moderation been off-topic for discussing
>> moderation?
>>
>> Since exactly when has the charter of uk.rec.cycling & .moderated been
>> modified to make it the place to discuss any uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>> possible issues with moderation?
>>
>> Where *exactly* do you think any [potential] urcm moderation issues
>> should be discussed?
>
> I've seen no discussion of moderation policy in this thread. Can you
> provide a message id of a post in which it was discussed?
There's none so blind as them as don't want to see.
The very first post in this thread was a clear if implied criticism of the
manner in which the mods of urcm have permitted that group to develop.
Whether it was warranted would have been completely on topic for this NG.
Unfortunately some educated but apparently not overly intelligent tykes
managed to subvert the thread by diverting attention away from the content
and onto sigs.
The URCM coterie's agenda lies exposed for what it is.
--
The Wanderer
I have become more optimistic.
I now believe that things can get worse.
Clive George
news:llgsjiw3hdht.17enlwznrfw9e$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On 25 Nov 2009 12:57:29 GMT, Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:05:45 +0000, Pedt wrote:
>>
>>> In message <7n27t3F...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:11:47 on Tue, 24
>>> Nov 2009, Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> wibbled
>>>
>>>>Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It has
>>>>no possible relevance here.
>>>>
>>> Since exactly when has unn.moderation been off-topic for discussing
>>> moderation?
>>>
>>> Since exactly when has the charter of uk.rec.cycling & .moderated been
>>> modified to make it the place to discuss any uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>>> possible issues with moderation?
>>>
>>> Where *exactly* do you think any [potential] urcm moderation issues
>>> should be discussed?
>>
>> I've seen no discussion of moderation policy in this thread. Can you
>> provide a message id of a post in which it was discussed?
>
> There's none so blind as them as don't want to see.
Or those who have very sensibly killfiled jms.
(Simon - did you check beyond your killfile?)
> The very first post in this thread was a clear if implied criticism of the
> manner in which the mods of urcm have permitted that group to develop.
> Whether it was warranted would have been completely on topic for this NG.
> Unfortunately some educated but apparently not overly intelligent tykes
> managed to subvert the thread by diverting attention away from the content
> and onto sigs.
>
> The URCM coterie's agenda lies exposed for what it is.
Is "Percy Picacity" one of the URCM coterie?
Ian Jackson
The Wanderer <the.wa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>On 25 Nov 2009 12:57:29 GMT, Simon Brooke wrote:
>>I've seen no discussion of moderation policy in this thread. Can you
>>provide a message id of a post in which it was discussed?
From: Judith M Smith <judith...@live.co.uk>
Subject: Fancy a bit of bullying?
Message-ID: <punlg519fq5koh5hv...@4ax.com>
>The very first post in this thread was a clear if implied criticism of the
>manner in which the mods of urcm have permitted that group to develop.
>Whether it was warranted would have been completely on topic for this NG.
I agree entirely with The Wanderer's comments above.
>The URCM coterie's agenda lies exposed for what it is.
Despite being one of the "coterie" whose "lies" are being "exposed",
I find Simon's responses incomprehensible.
--
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
jms
>Happi Monday wrote:
>> Judith M Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Any comments?
>>
>> Yes! Go discuss the other fucking group on the other fucking group -
>> geez, what a silly bitch you are Judy.
>
>jms can't get on to the other group (though there are many socks in the
>drawer). We were all told to fuck off to ucrm - but it now looks as if
>envy is setting in.
What makes you think I can't use URCM?
What makes you think I don't?
Envy of the bunch of bullies and tossers who post there now?
Do you mean I want to post such interesting things as:
"Is it just me? But I prefer Tesco own brand yeast extract. It has a
slightly milder taste and a slightly runnier consistency, and it is
cheaper. "
You are right - I really am envious.
What about being able to post such things as:
==========================================================
Frankly I don't believe you. (Ian Jackson)
==========================================================
Do you ever stop to listen to yourself before coming out with such
sweeping generalities?
==========================================================
I'm sorry that you feel that way Daniele, however I'm ( and always
have
been ) of the opionion that elephants ( especailly bull elephants) in
the corner of the room shouldn't be ignored and when you smell
excrement
that comes from that direction then it's better to point it out
rather
than stand knee deep in it pretending that it's no happening.
==========================================================
If you have you nose up somone's bum you might be part of the mob
==========================================================
You are right - I really am envious that I am not taking a full part
in that fine upstanding moderated group.
The Wanderer
> In article <llgsjiw3hdht.17enlwznrfw9e$.d...@40tude.net>,
> The Wanderer <the.wa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The URCM coterie's agenda lies exposed for what it is.
>
> Despite being one of the "coterie" whose "lies" are being "exposed",
> I find Simon's responses incomprehensible.
Hmm, I detect a problem with semantics. I suggest you read what I wrote,
not what you think I wrote.
--
The Wanderer
That no one understands doesn't make you an artist.
thirty-six
> "Is it just me? But I prefer Tesco own brand yeast extract. It has a
> slightly milder taste and a slightly runnier consistency, and it is
> cheaper. "
>
> You are right - I really am envious.
I said vegemite. But why bother if I can get Jardox or Bovril, make
muckh nicer savoury spreads.
chris French
<stilly...@googlemail.com> writes
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:05:45 +0000, Pedt wrote:
>
>> In message <7n27t3F...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:11:47 on Tue, 24
>> Nov 2009, Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> wibbled
>>
>>>Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It has
>>>no possible relevance here.
>>>
>> Since exactly when has unn.moderation been off-topic for discussing
>> moderation?
>>
>> Since exactly when has the charter of uk.rec.cycling & .moderated been
>> modified to make it the place to discuss any uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>> possible issues with moderation?
>>
>> Where *exactly* do you think any [potential] urcm moderation issues
>> should be discussed?
>
>I've seen no discussion of moderation policy in this thread. Can you
>provide a message id of a post in which it was discussed?
>
Ehh???
JMS's first post was re moderation of responses to some of
Thirty-sixes posts to urcm.
--
Chris French
Ian Jackson
The Wanderer <the.wa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>On 25 Nov 2009 14:32:30 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson wrote:
>>In article <llgsjiw3hdht.17enlwznrfw9e$.d...@40tude.net>,
>>The Wanderer <the.wa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>The URCM coterie's agenda lies exposed for what it is.
>>
>>Despite being one of the "coterie" whose "lies" are being "exposed",
>>I find Simon's responses incomprehensible.
>
>Hmm, I detect a problem with semantics. I suggest you read what I wrote,
>not what you think I wrote.
Oh, sorry, I misread you. But, I don't know what this "agenda" is
that I'm supposed to share with Simon. We may share common tendency
to occasionally post articles with mistakes in but erring is hardly an
uncommon trait amongst human beings.
I hope though that I'm more ready to be corrected than (sadly) Simon
seems to have shown himself in this thread.
mileburner
Jardox and Bovril are both animal products. Vegemite, Marmite and Tesco own
brand yeast extract are all vegetable products.
BTW it was my quote, and I only posted it to see if this kind of mindless
drivel would get past moderation - it did.
Mr Benn
news:UDA*At...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
> In article <687kijewrk1l.1eqb6igy0w8p0$.d...@40tude.net>,
> The Wanderer <the.wa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 25 Nov 2009 14:32:30 +0000 (GMT), Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>In article <llgsjiw3hdht.17enlwznrfw9e$.d...@40tude.net>,
>>>The Wanderer <the.wa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The URCM coterie's agenda lies exposed for what it is.
>>>
>>>Despite being one of the "coterie" whose "lies" are being "exposed",
>>>I find Simon's responses incomprehensible.
>>
>>Hmm, I detect a problem with semantics. I suggest you read what I wrote,
>>not what you think I wrote.
>
> Oh, sorry, I misread you. But, I don't know what this "agenda" is
> that I'm supposed to share with Simon. We may share common tendency
> to occasionally post articles with mistakes in but erring is hardly an
> uncommon trait amongst human beings.
>
> I hope though that I'm more ready to be corrected than (sadly) Simon
> seems to have shown himself in this thread.
Are you feeling ok? You're beginning to sound reasonable.
Judith M Smith
Sorry sunshine - I read URCM, I absorb what is said, and I comment on
it.
Call it monitoring if you will.
The point you cannot escape - is that what I said is true.
I did not realise that I have to subscribe to the group. Please can
you advise how I can do that - and I will do so.
Is the subscription free?
PS - Have I said thanks for the idea?
Judith M Smith
Wonderful.
Is there anyone who could translate this shit please?
(PS Have I thanked you for the ideas?)
Judith M Smith
>Judith M Smith wrote:
>
>> What is this obsession that you have with bull-shit?
>>
>
>
>(removed chicken-shit x-post)
>
>
>Ah, a lesson on bullshit from our resident 9th Dan Black Belt on the
>subject.
>Sifu - we are all your students.
>Enlighten us on the righteous path of bullshittery, we are not worthy,
>we can never expect to reach the heights of your lifelong excellence in
>bovine excreta.
Hello again - you are finding much time to comment on my posts - much
appreciated.
(Have I thanked you for the ideas?)
d...@telent.net
> Jardox and Bovril are both animal products. Vegemite, Marmite and Tesco own
> brand yeast extract are all vegetable products.
>
> BTW it was my quote, and I only posted it to see if this kind of mindless
> drivel would get past moderation - it did.
I really do think the moderators have an unenviable task if they are to
be slated both for being too heavy-handed /and/ for attempting to
provide "light-touch" moderation by letting innocuous sandwich spread
discussion through. It's not a job I'd want to take on
-dan
Judith M Smith
I love it when someone has no sensible answer to a suggestion and they
try to ridicule it by total off the wall statements.
Feel free to explain what is wrong with the suggestion.
thirty-six
But it is cycling related for it contains catalysts to enable general
food to be processed into usable energy in the muscles. Without the B
vitamins for which these products contain, you would find muscle
function severely impaired and would likely be unable to pedal in
excess of 200rpm. Another good food source of b vtamins is live beer
an essential aid to rehydration when mixed with a little lemon.
Black stout and bitter lemon, mmmm.
Señor Chris
>
> If you believe that everyone is being treated equally and can state
> that after you have read both threads - then I will be happy to point
> out the posts which you have the inability to read and understand.
>
So you have specific posts in mind ? Your unwillingness to identify
them indicates a lack of confidence that they support your allegations.
kat
Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> said
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:11:54 +0000, kat wrote:
>
>> Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> said
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:59:25 +0000, Percy Picacity wrote:
>>>
>>> [Snip: troll wrestling]
>>>
>>> Errr... guys, would you mind not cross-posting this to u.n.n.m? It
>>> has no possible relevance here.
>>
>> Where else is someone supposed to raise a query about moderation? If
>> that is not on topic in here I don't know what is.
>
> I've followed this thread back as far as I can, and I can see no
> evidence that it ever discussed moderation policy. Maybe it once did,
> but if so that was before it arrived on uk.net.news.moderation; I
> don't read the other group to which this thread is posted.
>
> In any case neither this branch of the thread, not the post that I
> followed up to, discussed moderation policy.
You snipped so much it wasn't clear - especially as we know you killfile the
OP, but given how much off topic-in-u.n.n* stuff we have had from assorted
cyclists - why change things now?
--
kat
>^..^<
Judith M Smith
wrote:
>Judith M Smith wrote:
You will only see how different people are treated differently if you
read the posts in the two threads previously identified.
If you are interested - then do so.
If you aren't then don't.
thirty-six
I used to get Spam Spreaders, but not seen them for a loooong time.
mileburner
<d...@telent.net> wrote in message news:874ooi6...@lsip.4a.telent.net...
I have not had anything of mine rejected from the group, but there have been
complaints that the moderators reject too much. Personally, I think that if
they want a proper moderated group for the proper discussion of cycle
related issues they should reject a lot more than they do.
But then I tend to think that the only reason the group was set up was to
eliminate trolls and the inevitable wrestling which follows their posts.
Señor Chris
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:06:58 +0000, Se�or Chris <us...@domain.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Judith M Smith wrote:
>>> If you believe that everyone is being treated equally and can state
>>> that after you have read both threads - then I will be happy to point
>>> out the posts which you have the inability to read and understand.
>>>
>> So you have specific posts in mind ? Your unwillingness to identify
>> them indicates a lack of confidence that they support your allegations.
>
>
> You will only see how different people are treated differently if you
> read the posts in the two threads previously identified.
>
> If you are interested - then do so.
>
> If you aren't then don't.
>
I am interested but if the person making the claims can't be bothered to
post the evidence they claim to have, I won't pursue it any further.
thirty-six
>
> I have not had anything of mine rejected from the group, but there have been
> complaints that the moderators reject too much. Personally, I think that if
> they want a proper moderated group for the proper discussion of cycle
> related issues they should reject a lot more than they do.
>
> But then I tend to think that the only reason the group was set up was to
> eliminate trolls and the inevitable wrestling which follows their posts.
It doesn't matter why it was set up, the consequences were
predictable. Usenet is good because it is open and quick, a moderated
group is not.. It is a tall resposibility to be a moderastor, but as
a discussion group, it will likely die to be later resurrected some
while after abandonment. As long as Chapman continues to post, these
groups develop unacceptably large amounts of dross and are not worth
the bother. I know the answer is not to respond, but I dont like this
attitude either.
Pedt
Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Judith M Smith <judith...@live.co.uk> wibbled
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:07:00 +0000, Se�or Chris <us...@domain.invalid>
>wrote:
>>If you are going to make serious allegations I think it only fair that
>>you provide some evidence. Author and date/time of posting will do.
>
>
>I have pointed out the threads in question.
>
>Why don't *you* have a read of those thread
Point out the specific posts and then unn.moderation readers might well
have a look and see whether they are worthy of discussion. You really
shouldn't be asking people to read a whole thread or two and guess which
posts you think there is a problem with.
--
Pedt
uk.announce ~ moderated group to announce news / events of specific interest to
a wider uk.* readership than the group(s) which their subjects would naturally
place them. See charter at <http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.announce.html>
Pedt
Nov 2009, d...@telent.net wibbled
>Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In message <7n27t3F...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:11:47 on Tue,
>> 24 Nov 2009, Simon Brooke <stilly...@googlemail.com> wibbled
>>
>>>possible relevance here.
>>>
>> moderation?
>
>signature only and did not mention the body of her post. There did not
>seem to be much discussion of moderation there.
>
I read the original post and Simon's reply to an intermediate post that
hadn't yet arrived here. Perhaps Simon should have left some context in.
Pedt
Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Mr Benn <nos...@invalid.invalid> wibbled
Actually, Ian has been reasonable in all his posts I've seen here (unnm)
about actual moderation of posts.
bugbear
> On 25 Nov, 20:21, "mileburner" <milebur...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> I have not had anything of mine rejected from the group, but there have been
>> complaints that the moderators reject too much. Personally, I think that if
>> they want a proper moderated group for the proper discussion of cycle
>> related issues they should reject a lot more than they do.
>>
>> But then I tend to think that the only reason the group was set up was to
>> eliminate trolls and the inevitable wrestling which follows their posts.
>
> It doesn't matter why it was set up, the consequences were
> predictable. Usenet is good because it is open and quick,
Actually, usenet used to be good because it was slow,
and people considered what they meant to say, and wrote carefully.
BugBear
thirty-six
An hours delay maybe, but not as damn slow as my experience with this
new group. It seems my postings are commented upon before airing, if
they make it, how could that happen? If someone appeared to not be
relying on a dial-up and the discussion was getting highly specialized
and involved I'd email them to set up a chat link and the pertinent
points would be copied over into a further usenet posting. This
constant ragging which chapman makes his specialty, did not occur. It
is a very strange peculiarity which appears to be infectious.
Judith M Smith
@\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <8stog55tjiklbplc9...@4ax.com>, at 00:26:06 on
>Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Judith M Smith <judith...@live.co.uk> wibbled
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:07:00 +0000, Se�or Chris <us...@domain.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>>If you are going to make serious allegations I think it only fair that
>>>you provide some evidence. Author and date/time of posting will do.
>>
>>
>>I have pointed out the threads in question.
>>
>>Why don't *you* have a read of those thread
>
>Point out the specific posts and then unn.moderation readers might well
>have a look and see whether they are worthy of discussion. You really
>shouldn't be asking people to read a whole thread or two and guess which
>posts you think there is a problem with.
I have clearly stated that the threads need to be read in order to
see how 36 is treated in comparison with others.
If you do not want to read the thread - then ignore what I and others
have said rather than expect to be hand-fed.
chris French
<ebc6a350-4363-47e7...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk> writes
>On 26 Nov, 09:04, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>> thirty-six wrote:
>> > On 25 Nov, 20:21, "mileburner" <milebur...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I have not had anything of mine rejected from the group, but there
>> >>have been
>> >> complaints that the moderators reject too much. Personally, I
>> >>think that if
>> >> they want a proper moderated group for the proper discussion of cycle
>> >> related issues they should reject a lot more than they do.
>>
>> >> But then I tend to think that the only reason the group was set up was to
>> >> eliminate trolls and the inevitable wrestling which follows their posts.
>>
>> > It doesn't matter why it was set up, the consequences were
>> > predictable. �Usenet is good because it is open and quick,
>>
>> Actually, usenet used to be good because it was slow,
>> and people considered what they meant to say, and wrote carefully.
>
>An hours delay maybe,
Often many hours, waiting for the 6pm cheap rate period to dialup and
download the days postings. And of course, reading offline meant not
seeing anymore replies for some hours as well sometimes.
> but not as damn slow as my experience with this
>new group. It seems my postings are commented upon before airing, if
>they make it, how could that happen?
In part it's the nature of Usenet propagation, but it probably means you
are using a sub-optimal newsprovider as well if it happens often
The messages have been 'aired' as you put it (in that they have been
accepted and posted by the urcm moderation system) and have obviously
been viewed by others if they managed to comment, just your server isn't
showing them yet.
It's very very unusual for me to see this with my news provider
(News.Individual). It appears that it is somewhat more common for you on
Google Groups. There is a failry obvious answer if this is a problem for
you (assuming you aren't reading from an environment where there are
restrictions on programs or internet use)
--
Chris French
thirty-six
wrote:
> In message
> <ebc6a350-4363-47e7-84db-28e6ac279...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> writes
My messages are sent for moderation, held up, similar comments to my
own are made or 'pre-empted' then my messages are posted and I can see
them within a couple of minutes. This does not happen with usenet,
only urcmod with human intervention, if my messages get posted at all.
Wm...
Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk>
>In message <8stog55tjiklbplc9...@4ax.com>, at 00:26:06 on
>Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Judith M Smith <judith...@live.co.uk> wibbled
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:07:00 +0000, Se�or Chris <us...@domain.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>>If you are going to make serious allegations I think it only fair that
>>>you provide some evidence. Author and date/time of posting will do.
>>
>>
>>I have pointed out the threads in question.
>>
>>Why don't *you* have a read of those thread
>
>Point out the specific posts and then unn.moderation readers might well
>have a look and see whether they are worthy of discussion. You really
>shouldn't be asking people to read a whole thread or two and guess
>which posts you think there is a problem with.
I'll set my stall up in case anyone has forgotten: I am a cyclist, I
voted for the group (urcm) not the moderators and I certainly don't read
all of urcm or urc, I generally get the gist of a thread in those groups
though and know most of the people in those groups in a Usenet sense, I
tend to break threads (Pedt, will know what I mean) into bits that are
interesting, the rest and if it starts going bad, I kill some bits
completely.
Given the above it wasn't hard for me to work out what the JMS was on
about. Interestingly (as others have pointed out) the person that was
meant to take offence was less offended than JMS was on his behalf. It
has to be said, he doesn't make things easy for himself at all times.
We're talking: which is the best way to drown a Welsh woman? No, you
shouldn't start by dyeing her hair and fire is quite wrong, what you
need is a brazier honed from original Euclidean stone (freely available
from libraries) and two of the episodes with Giles Coran and Superkins
(preferably one where they both vomit) and also ... that type of stuff.
It appears to me what the JMS wants you (plural) to do is wade through
(I added this up) about 473 (probably a bit more, I am being
conservative) posts to find about half a dozen (at most, I am probably
overestimating) where a bad word might have been said about a particular
person.
Oh, and 36 doesn't seem too bothered by all of this from my reading, I'd
describe him as resilient rather than the bullied individual JMS
portrays him as.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
thirty-six
> Pedt <"\"@ @\""@some.oddities-etc.co.uk>
>
>
>
> >In message <8stog55tjiklbplc9v3jefp9bumh3rh...@4ax.com>, at 00:26:06 on
> >Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Judith M Smith <judithmsm...@live.co.uk> wibbled
> >>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:07:00 +0000, Señor Chris <u...@domain.invalid>
It is certainly victimisation and it is unpleasant to me. It does at
times seem to be a concerted effort to oust me. I'd prefer valid
discussion of which I knew would probably be too much to hope for in
an open moderated group.
Marc
>>
>> Oh, and 36 doesn't seem too bothered by all of this from my reading, I'd
>> describe him as resilient rather than the bullied individual JMS
>> portrays him as.
>>
>> --
>> Wm...
>> Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
>
> It is certainly victimisation and it is unpleasant to me. It does at
> times seem to be a concerted effort to oust me. I'd prefer valid
> discussion of which I knew would probably be too much to hope for in
> an open moderated group.
Valid discussion? No problem, start by validating your claims. You
have been asked a number of times on a number of subjects to do so, each
time you have either twisted and wriggled or simply refused to make any
validation at all. That's when the cry of "bullshit" is heard. You even
ran back to here crying that you couldn't get a fair hearing in URCM,
and now you complain that even in here you can't get a "valid
discussion"! You can't get valid discussion in URCM , you can't get
one in URC, what's the common factor? Oh yes, you not backing up your
bombastic statement of "facts"!
chris French
<ed73c3f4-4f65-465a...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk> writes
>On 26 Nov, 15:36, chris French <newspost-c-...@familyfrench.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <ebc6a350-4363-47e7-84db-28e6ac279...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>> thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk> writes
>> >new group. �It seems my postings are commented upon before airing, if
>> >they make it, how could that happen?
>>
>> In part it's the nature of Usenet propagation, but it probably means you
>> are using a sub-optimal newsprovider as well if it happens often
>>
>> The messages have been 'aired' as you put it (in that they have been
>> accepted and posted by the urcm moderation system) and have obviously
>> been viewed by others if they managed to comment, just your server isn't
>> showing them yet.
>
>My messages are sent for moderation, held up, similar comments to my
>own are made or 'pre-empted' then my messages are posted and I can see
>them within a couple of minutes.
Ah, that is not how I read your previous post. Still then sure what
"It seems my postings are commented upon before airing, if
they make it, how could that happen?"
Means though.
>This does not happen with usenet,
URCM is part of Usenet, it's just that posts pass through a moderation
system first. This means they may be delayed.
>only urcmod with human intervention, if my messages get posted at all.
<Shrug> Well yes, if you are complaining that some of your posts seem to
be delayed longer than others, or possibly rejected and not posted at
all, then that is the nature of the beast. And with the frequency,
length and content of some of your posts it wouldn't surprise me
--
Chris French
Wm...
<aeb539d9-0811-48db...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
uk.net.news.moderation thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk>
>It is certainly victimisation and it is unpleasant to me. It does at
>times seem to be a concerted effort to oust me. I'd prefer valid
>discussion of which I knew would probably be too much to hope for in
>an open moderated group.
OK, let us take this slowly.
I thought it was your other names that were the main problem.
I think you have debated, ummm, looking for the right word, extensively,
shall we say, about your theories in a number of cycling groups.
I've no reason to out you and most other cyclists don't either, I think
the fact that you have been outed was a bit rude, I'm a "reply to what
has been said" person most of the time. Unless I know someone has
changed names, like some other people, that irritates me.
In one sense you are fun, I find the extended conversations you get
involved in thoroughly boring.
What you ought to do is produce a web page containing all your gems and
leave it at that.
IMO
P.S. There always seems to be a bit of "when I were a lad" in your
postings. Some of us still just get on a bike and ride to work, y'know.
Girls, boys, women, men, commuters, people that use bikes for exercise,
people that use cars too.
P.P.S. Are we *all* alien to each other?
FFS
thirty-six
wrote:
>
> <Shrug> Well yes, if you are complaining that some of your posts seem to
> be delayed longer than others, or possibly rejected and not posted at
> all, then that is the nature of the beast. And with the frequency,
> length and content of some of your posts it wouldn't surprise me
Like anything with any worthwhile content. Yes, the length of my
messages may not be the shortest at times, but that is because I dont
want to have to go back answering silly little detail questions. When
I first used usenet, that was the way of things. Short answers just
prompted more questions, so it was better to get all the answers in to
save bandwidth later. a reasonable balance IIRC was to make the
message two or three times the size of my headers at least.
BTW the beast is ugly.
thirty-six
Observation.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>Oh, and 36 doesn't seem too bothered by all of this from my reading, I'd
>describe him as resilient rather than the bullied individual JMS
>portrays him as.
This is the third persona at least under which he has posted his
crackpot theories, never admitting until it is obvious to all that the
previous incarnations existed. This time he went through some fairly
tortuous argumentation before finally admitting that his wheels are
tied and soldered. He is arguing with people who have built more
wheels than 36 has probably had hot dinners, including a qualified
engineer and published author on finite element analysis, who has
performed such an analysis of bicycle wheels and finds virtually every
claim of 36's which is specific enough to be testable, to be nonsense.
The question is not whether the few tetchy posts about 36 should have
been allowed, but why he is being allowed to post his repetitive
twaddle.
IMO this case is actually a demonstration of the mods extending good
faith beyond its elastic limit.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.
thirty-six
> uk.net.news.moderation thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk>
>
> >It is certainly victimisation and it is unpleasant to me. It does at
> >times seem to be a concerted effort to oust me. I'd prefer valid
> >discussion of which I knew would probably be too much to hope for in
> >an open moderated group.
>
> OK, let us take this slowly.
>
> I thought it was your other names that were the main problem.
Huh, what are you on about?
I've not made any secret of who I am, I just prefer not to be public
about it right now. The Views I have on the best wheel constrruction
are probably not unique, but they are certainly uncommon. I cann
> I think you have debated, ummm, looking for the right word, extensively,
> shall we say, about your theories in a number of cycling groups
I'm still looking for something else I may have missed. I recently
came across the suggestion that fibre washers would assist in nipple
seating. I gave it a go on a scrap wheel I have and sure enough it
eases tensioning and provides easier rocking between nipple and rim.
I would have expected to get this in a forum, but alas no,
itwaselswhere tontinternet.
>
> I've no reason to out you and most other cyclists don't either, I think
> the fact that you have been outed was a bit rude, I'm a "reply to what
> has been said" person most of the time. Unless I know someone has
> changed names, like some other people, that irritates me.
>
> In one sense you are fun, I find the extended conversations you get
> involved in thoroughly boring.
so do I
>
> What you ought to do is produce a web page containing all your gems and
> leave it at that.
I might forget to change it should I change my mind about details.
>
> IMO
>
> P.S. There always seems to be a bit of "when I were a lad" in your
> postings. Some of us still just get on a bike and ride to work, y'know.
> Girls, boys, women, men, commuters, people that use bikes for exercise,
> people that use cars too.
That's because on one hand, my attitudes have changed since I were a
lad and some of it is because of witnessing an event which is relevant
to that specific time.
thirty-six
wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:54:28 +0000, "Wm..."
>
> <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> >Oh, and 36 doesn't seem too bothered by all of this from my reading, I'd
> >describe him as resilient rather than the bullied individual JMS
> >portrays him as.
>
> This is the third persona at least under which he has posted his
> crackpot theories, never admitting until it is obvious to all that the
> previous incarnations existed.
Not me. I provide witness to my method and observation of the
results.
> This time he went through some fairly
> tortuous argumentation before finally admitting that his wheels are
> tied and soldered.
Not me. I have only one wheel tied and soldered which was essential
because of its peculiar spoking arrangement.
> He is arguing with people who have built more
> wheels than 36 has probably had hot dinners, including a qualified
> engineer and published author on finite element analysis, who has
> performed such an analysis of bicycle wheels and finds virtually every
> claim of 36's which is specific enough to be testable, to be nonsense.
Who would that be? I'm not aware of anyyone fitting such a
description. Please provide details of this person and their heresy.
>
> The question is not whether the few tetchy posts about 36 should have
> been allowed, but why he is being allowed to post his repetitive
> twaddle.
STFU What have you been doing for the last decade? You are an
ignoramous.
>
> IMO this case is actually a demonstration of the mods extending good
> faith beyond its elastic limit.
Baby lost his rattle?
>
> Guy
> --http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
Tom Crispin
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>crackpot theories
Risk compensation is considered by some to be a "crackpot theory".
Just because some consider it invalid does not make it unworthy of
polite discussion. If it annoys you, don't respond.
Marc
> On 26 Nov, 18:36, chris French <newspost-c-...@familyfrench.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> <Shrug> Well yes, if you are complaining that some of your posts seem to
>> be delayed longer than others, or possibly rejected and not posted at
>> all, then that is the nature of the beast. And with the frequency,
>> length and content of some of your posts it wouldn't surprise me
>
> Like anything with any worthwhile content. Yes, the length of my
> messages may not be the shortest at times, but that is because I dont
> want to have to go back answering silly little detail questions.
go?", for anyone that claims their wheels go faster I would have thought
that that would be a "valid discussion" point woudn't it?
Marc
your proof" , it was after he refused to answer ( on more than one
occasion) when I called "Bullshit"
thirty-six
I wasn't measuring when I was getting bounced around but estimate no
more than 10mph. Whith the magic wheels i could manage 18mph on the
same cobbled road. Not having my teeth banging together made a
significant difference and I was less exerted.
thirty-six
Rub it into your nipples and it will make them tight so you will never
be loose spoked again.
Marc
phrase this so that you can understand my meaning , Oh yes I know!
BULLSHIT!
Clive George
news:TxvCVJaKQtDLFwex@[127.0.0.1]...
> I've no reason to out you and most other cyclists don't either, I think
> the fact that you have been outed was a bit rude, I'm a "reply to what has
> been said" person most of the time.
He hardly "got outed", it's blindingly obvious who he is. People know him
over in rec.bicyles.tech too, where he fails to argue with Jobst Brandt,
author of the definitive book on bicycle wheels, mostly because Jobst
doesn't take him seriously at all.
I do wonder how much wheel building experience he has. It appears the "bent
spokes" think he's got going on at the moment is the result of one wheel
build about 10 years ago, and I suspect he's got his cause and effect wrong
there - it's not that his new build was magically brilliant, it's that the
one he was comparing it to got put together wrongly. I think he may be
building his wheels the same as everybody else is, and his little trick
makes no difference at all.
Tom Crispin
Then ignore it.
Do you require proof of every crackpot theory you hear in the pub? Or
do you move on and chat to someone else, leaving the crackpot to mull
their crackpot theory over alone?
thirty-six
You wallow in it.
thirty-six
> "Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:TxvCVJaKQtDLFwex@[127.0.0.1]...
>
> > I've no reason to out you and most other cyclists don't either, I think
> > the fact that you have been outed was a bit rude, I'm a "reply to what has
> > been said" person most of the time.
>
> He hardly "got outed", it's blindingly obvious who he is. People know him
> over in rec.bicyles.tech too, where he fails to argue with Jobst Brandt,
> author of the definitive book on bicycle wheels, mostly because Jobst
> doesn't take him seriously at all.
>
> I do wonder how much wheel building experience he has.
Enough to see what works well and what doesnt, because I was very
abusive to eq2uipment I had to build my own wheels because i couldn't
afford someone else to get them wrong again and again.
> It appears the "bent
> spokes" think he's got going on at the moment is the result of one wheel
> build about 10 years ago,
It's only the rear wheel in original condition because I got bored of
nothing happening I played with the front. This rear wheel which is
being used most of the time is the one i will generally refer to. I
have built another 15 on top of that first pair and numerous
modifications including to wheels I had built before I found the
solution to instabuility.
> and I suspect he's got his cause and effect wrong
> there - it's not that his new build was magically brilliant, it's that the
> one he was comparing it to got put together wrongly.
Just like all the Brandt type assemblies, only with Open4CD you cannot
get the wheel to perform at acceptable spoke tension when using
Brandts method. A rear wheel is unstable and i wasn't fool enough to
use the same method buckles wheels and tears rims apart again.
> I think he may be
> building his wheels the same as everybody else is, and his little trick
> makes no difference at all.
Ho Ho
Wm...
<hkAUsfAr...@blackhole.familyfrench.co.uk> uk.rec.cycling chris
French <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk>
><Shrug> Well yes, if you are complaining that some of your posts seem
>to be delayed longer than others, or possibly rejected and not posted
>at all, then that is the nature of the beast. And with the frequency,
>length and content of some of your posts it wouldn't surprise me
<fx:cough>
Pity the moderator that has to read the outpouring.
Wm...
<3e61f62a-1170-4d6f...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
uk.rec.cycling thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk>
>On 25 Nov, 20:21, "mileburner" <milebur...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have not had anything of mine rejected from the group, but there have been
>> complaints that the moderators reject too much. Personally, I think that if
>> they want a proper moderated group for the proper discussion of cycle
>> related issues they should reject a lot more than they do.
>>
>> But then I tend to think that the only reason the group was set up was to
>> eliminate trolls and the inevitable wrestling which follows their posts.
>
>It doesn't matter why it was set up, the consequences were
>predictable. Usenet is good because it is open and quick, a moderated
>group is not.. It is a tall resposibility to be a moderastor, but as
>a discussion group, it will likely die to be later resurrected some
>while after abandonment. As long as Chapman continues to post, these
>groups develop unacceptably large amounts of dross and are not worth
>the bother. I know the answer is not to respond, but I dont like this
>attitude either.
Have you actually met GuyC in person, 36?
I have.
Wm...
<ebc6a350-4363-47e7...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
uk.rec.cycling thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk>
>
>An hours delay maybe, but not as damn slow as my experience with this
>new group. It seems my postings are commented upon before airing, if
>they make it, how could that happen? If someone appeared to not be
>relying on a dial-up and the discussion was getting highly specialized
>and involved I'd email them to set up a chat link and the pertinent
>points would be copied over into a further usenet posting. This
>constant ragging which chapman makes his specialty, did not occur. It
>is a very strange peculiarity which appears to be infectious.
On a particular point here, 36, I haven't noticed GuyC picking on you.
In case you haven't noticed, I like details.
I say you have fibbed.
Details, please, and don't back off.
thirty-six
> uk.rec.cycling thirty-six <thirty-...@live.co.uk>
>
>
>
> >An hours delay maybe, but not as damn slow as my experience with this
> >new group. It seems my postings are commented upon before airing, if
> >they make it, how could that happen? If someone appeared to not be
> >relying on a dial-up and the discussion was getting highly specialized
> >and involved I'd email them to set up a chat link and the pertinent
> >points would be copied over into a further usenet posting. This
> >constant ragging which chapman makes his specialty, did not occur. It
> >is a very strange peculiarity which appears to be infectious.
>
> On a particular point here, 36, I haven't noticed GuyC picking on you.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, I like details.
>
> I say you have fibbed.
Really?
>
> Details, please, and don't back off.
3x14=42
alpha bravo charlie delta echo foxtrot
Contains water, malt, hops and yeast.
Sugar cubes will burn if you rub them with tobacco ash before applying
a match.
The wind blows due west on wet wednesdays at three o'clock if Arsenal
won at home 3-1.
Wm...
uk.rec.cycling "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net>
>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:54:28 +0000, "Wm..."
><tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>Oh, and 36 doesn't seem too bothered by all of this from my reading, I'd
>>describe him as resilient rather than the bullied individual JMS
>>portrays him as.
>
>This is the third persona at least under which he has posted his
>crackpot theories,
I don't care. I read it and then ...
> never admitting until it is obvious to all that the
>previous incarnations existed. This time he went through some fairly
>tortuous argumentation before finally admitting that his wheels are
>tied and soldered.
You read all of that? I just waited for a few days and read the bit at
the end.
> He is arguing with people who have built more
>wheels than 36 has probably had hot dinners, including a qualified
>engineer and published author on finite element analysis, who has
>performed such an analysis of bicycle wheels and finds virtually every
>claim of 36's which is specific enough to be testable, to be nonsense.
He also doesn't seem to like my more practical "I did this on a bike"
stuff.
>The question is not whether the few tetchy posts about 36 should have
>been allowed, but why he is being allowed to post his repetitive
>twaddle.
I'm leaning that way too.
>IMO this case is actually a demonstration of the mods extending good
>faith beyond its elastic limit.
Quite. But from an independent observer's POV it might not seem that
way. I think they (whoever they are) think we are being ungenerous to
36.
Wm...
<6Yidnf5yV45NkZLW...@brightview.co.uk> uk.rec.cycling Clive
George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
That isn't going to persuade people in unn.moderation much, dear.
To some extent all they (and I am one of them) see is "what the fuck are
the people on bicycles arguing about?" and "why the fuck do we have to
keep on reading about it here?"
here being unn.moderation and if anyone from urc tells me to fuck off
back to where I came from you know what I'll say in return.
The monsters want to create problems and will, of course.
You know the rules: don't reply to the bad people.
Wm...
<c2602a25-0486-4e8e...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
uk.rec.cycling thirty-six <thirt...@live.co.uk>
I'll advance that to you being a liar.
Clive George
> Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:16:53
> <6Yidnf5yV45NkZLW...@brightview.co.uk> uk.rec.cycling Clive
> George <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk>
>
>>"Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
>>news:TxvCVJaKQtDLFwex@[127.0.0.1]...
>>
>>> I've no reason to out you and most other cyclists don't either, I think
>>> the fact that you have been outed was a bit rude, I'm a "reply to what
>>> has
>>> been said" person most of the time.
>>
>>He hardly "got outed", it's blindingly obvious who he is. People know him
>>over in rec.bicyles.tech too, where he fails to argue with Jobst Brandt,
>>author of the definitive book on bicycle wheels, mostly because Jobst
>>doesn't take him seriously at all.
>>
>>I do wonder how much wheel building experience he has. It appears the
>>"bent
>>spokes" think he's got going on at the moment is the result of one wheel
>>build about 10 years ago, and I suspect he's got his cause and effect
>>wrong
>>there - it's not that his new build was magically brilliant, it's that the
>>one he was comparing it to got put together wrongly. I think he may be
>>building his wheels the same as everybody else is, and his little trick
>>makes no difference at all.
>
> That isn't going to persuade people in unn.moderation much, dear.
DILLIGAF?
> To some extent all they (and I am one of them) see is "what the fuck are
> the people on bicycles arguing about?" and "why the fuck do we have to
> keep on reading about it here?"
If you're wondering that, "why the fuck" are you making comments which
invite reply? You posted a comment, I pointed out that it wasn't necessarily
correct. You posted to two NGs, I included comment pertinent to both.
The answer to seeing this pollution in unnm lies partly in your hands -
you're making it worse.
> You know the rules: don't reply to the bad people.
So why are you posting in this thread? Or are you the bad people?
Marc
repeated, different, crackpot theories then he's going to :-
a) be asked for proof for each one.
b) Be told he's bullshitting when he can't/won't supply it.
Rob Morley
"Wm..." <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> Thu, 26 Nov 2009 18:36:27
> <hkAUsfAr...@blackhole.familyfrench.co.uk> uk.rec.cycling chris
> French <newspos...@familyfrench.co.uk>
>
> ><Shrug> Well yes, if you are complaining that some of your posts
> >seem to be delayed longer than others, or possibly rejected and not
> >posted at all, then that is the nature of the beast. And with the
> >frequency, length and content of some of your posts it wouldn't
> >surprise me
>
> <fx:cough>
>
> Pity the moderator that has to read the outpouring.
>
ISTM that none of them needs to read it - they can just leave it in the
queue for someone else to do ...
:-)
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:29:19 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>
> >crackpot theories
>
> Risk compensation is considered by some to be a "crackpot theory".
>
> Just because some consider it invalid does not make it unworthy of
> polite discussion. If it annoys you, don't respond.
I'm puzzled as to what would be seen to be more generous to him.
To fail to engage on the pseudoscientific arguments would be
patronising. It's an unattractive choice: we patronise him or we are
"ungenerous" because we rebut his nonsense. Perhaps we should pat him
on the shoulder and say "yes, Trevor, of course your wheels are
better, stronger and faster than those built by the professionals for
professionals, despite your total lack of scientific arguments in
support"?
--
Guy
Rob Morley
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> To fail to engage on the pseudoscientific arguments would be
> patronising. It's an unattractive choice: we patronise him or we are
> "ungenerous" because we rebut his nonsense. Perhaps we should pat him
> on the shoulder and say "yes, Trevor, of course your wheels are
> better, stronger and faster than those built by the professionals for
> professionals, despite your total lack of scientific arguments in
> support"?
>
Why not? There's a point beyond which rebutting every ludicrous claim
that he makes serves no real purpose other than to continue engaging
him in unproductive discussion.
Wm...
uk.rec.cycling Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com>
You are a moderator of urcm AICM5E :)
The argument then becomes Matted in ... well, you know, sweaty people
that don't exercise much but do want to tell cyclists what they ought to
do and think and ... have you heard my theory about frame building? No?
Good, I'll tell you about it over and over and ... no, surely I haven't
told you about it properly yet, you just need to be convinced, take two
bits of metal, look, I am not interested in what you are saying you
haven't let me tell you about my frame yet ... of course everyone else
is wrong, I'm the only person in the world that knows how to build a
bike, etc.
Ian Jackson
Yers. I do sometimes leave a message in the queue just because it's
too long to read properly and I'm short of time. And I sometimes
leave a message because I feel I want to catch up on the group first
to understand the context.
When moderation works well it's something the moderators can do when
they have a spare half-minute. Hit reload, click approve on an easy
article or three.
That's really what we prefer doing (I think can safely say this goes
for most if not all of the moderators). Anything with a difficult
decision - or worse, which needs discussion on the list or in public -
is much less satisfying.
Luckily the vast majority of postings are no-brainer approvals.
--
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
Trevor A Panther
news:20091127100649.441bb511@bluemoon...
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:07:12 -0800 (PST)
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
<snipped. <snipped>
> Why not? There's a point beyond which rebutting every ludicrous claim
> that he makes serves no real purpose other than to continue engaging
> him in unproductive discussion.
>
I absolutely agree!
But you see your response fails in respect of "Just zis (sic) Guy. ( who is
a permanent resident in my "sin bin" along with "36").
He, JZG, is totally unable to ignore such posters and will not do the
obvious to any poster who might be loosely defined as a "troll" -- that is
to use his killfile.
It is an astonishingly simple thing to do.
However JZG has long been unable to resist baiting. He has long been, and
continues to be, the champion "troll wrestler" who actually creates more --
I will be polite and call it --- "hassle" ( as opposed to "excrement") and
always then professes innocence and amazement that he should be so
considered!
Fortunately I rarely detect his presence-- similarly to 36 -- who was one of
he first "new" members of urcm to qualify as a permanent resident of my sin
bin.
But then I am, in a small way, guilty of the same offence wrt JZG.
urc and urcm are actually of little importance in the real world of being a
human being and I have placed both location very much on the "back burner".
this year
Far more important things to do!
Fortunately I have just got back from a 30 kms ride , which I enjoyed today
having been battered by the weather over the last few days. It was nice to
be able to cycle and actually enjoy it ( as opposed to being like beating
my head against a brick wall -- and it's nice when you stop!)
I am going off this weekend for a couple of days cycle camping -- just to
keep in practice -- and I enjoy being in my tent in adverse weather (it sort
of justifies the reason and expense of having an expensive tent)!
I have already booked my outward and return journeys to France for next May
by Bike Express. I haven't used them for a couple of years but my planned
tour for 2010 is already well decided upon and the Bike Express is very
convenient for me to use for this trip. I shall be dropped of at Beaune and
then picked up 4 + weeks later in Tours So I shall go down the Saone then
cross over to the Loire.
I shall be doing it a bit differently next year since my overall distance to
be travelled under full camping load is only about 700 kms but I intend to
stay put in 2 or 3 selected camp sites and tour from there on a day to day
basis -- but without the loaded trailer behind me. So I should still do
about 2000 kms
which is enough for me these days.
Funnily enough though I do really enjoy the days journey from one camping to
another and it is usually the people that I meet during or at the end of the
day that make it so enjoyable -- and I remember places because of the people
that I meet rather than for the places themselves.
So it is back to France -- I do like the French supermarkets which are
simple hugely better than their UK equivalents and have such a much larger
selection of foods -- and they also cater for the "smaller buyer"
In Germany this year I was often in the position of only having and ALDI or
LIDL to buy from and they just don't cater for a single cyclist wanting to
buy a couple of potatoes and carrots and a bit of meat!
But even the biggest French supermarkets I have encountered allow one to
buy small bits and pieces --- and they inevitably have the small pack of
"soup veg" which is just the right size for 2 days for my evening "hot pot"
--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
--
From
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
Wm...
uk.rec.cycling Trevor A Panther <ta...@PSANTISPAMblueyonder.co.uk>
[snip]
You remind me of my father. I think it must be an age thing. What you
want is the approval of your children (IIRC you don't have any). So
what you say is "I'm going to do this" or "I did that" with the
expectant "can I have a pat on the back, please".
I think everyone likes a good ride report, you, however have wobbled too
many times between good puppy and bad puppy so I no longer bother.
If you want shrinking, consider if you are looking after your father or
if is he looking after you.
Has anyone else noticed that Trevor's ride reports rarely mention other
people?
Judith M Smith
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>I'll advance that to you being a liar.
Ah - yes - now you are on home ground: the subject of lying.
Do you recall promising to provide some information if I emailed you?
Do you recall me emailing you?
Do you recall *not* providing the information promised.
You are clearly a liar.
--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.
The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly vizible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
Judith M Smith
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Have you actually met GuyC in person, 36?
>
>I have.
That's nice.
Relevance? : nil.
(PS Are you seeing anyone about your habitual lying?)