Re: Cycling to School
Tom Crispin
wrote:
>Derek C wrote:
>>
>> You couldn't make this up if you tried. The Nanny State gone mad.
>> Think I'll go and wrap myself in cotton wool and stay indoors for the
>> rest of my life!
>>
>
>Oh the irony again from the man that wants to wrap us all up in
>polystyrene foam.
If this isn't an attept to bring on old flame fest from urc into urcm,
I don't know what is...
Message-ID: <I5KdnTnvne1l2K_R...@bt.com>
Jim A
> If this isn't an attept to bring on old flame fest from urc into urcm,
> I don't know what is...
>
> Message-ID:<I5KdnTnvne1l2K_R...@bt.com>
That's right - bring it here as well then why don't you?!
--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride
Matt B
There seem to be 2 possible explanations for how that inflammatory post
arrived in URCM:
1. Pass listing with no previous history to URCM.
2. Moderator "mistake". Derek C is currently being subjected to the
traditional URC "warm welcome" as traditionally served to those bringing
a different angle to the orthodoxy there, it being meted out by one or
two of the URC old guard.
--
Matt B
Geoff Berrow
wrote:
Well if robust argument is to be allowed, I'm all in favour. As long
as they are consistent.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
Rob Morley
Matt B <matt....@nospam.london.com> wrote:
> Derek C is currently being subjected to the
> traditional URC "warm welcome" as traditionally served to those
> bringing a different angle to the orthodoxy there
In this case ITYM "as traditionally served to those who appear to be
terminally clueless and think they're being clever, or
trolls" (sometimes it's hard to distinguish between the two, so don't
bother trying). I think it's subtly different from the reason that
some of them don't like you, which seems to me based either on
misunderstanding or some distrust/perceived threat.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
You have only to look at Derek's mis-spelled spelling flames,
grammatically incorrect grammar flames, and insistence that a couple
of inches of potential energy is a significant factor in glider
crashes, to understand that he is in the "unconscious incompetence"
quadrant; it is natural that people with a didactic tendency will try
to help him move to "conscious incompetence" however resistant he
might be to the idea.
It's a no-win situation, though. Either we allow Derek to make false
assertions unchallenged, in which case we are, according to MattB,
"abusive" and "oppressing" him by refusing to engage with his
foolishness, or we engage with him, necessarily proving him wrong in
the process, in which case we are teh cabalz (TINC) - either way, we
"prove" the evil cyclist cabal theory.
It would be easier to disprove if someone came along who was capable
of putting an argument coherently, but it always appears that the ones
with the best grasp of science and logic happen to fall into what is
loosely termed "orthodox" opinion - and of course we could not
possibly admit that this might be orthodox precisely because those
with a grip on science and logic naturally drift to that position, oh
dear me no. We are teh cabalz even though we disagree violently on
many things. Definitely. Or something.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
The usenet price promise: all opinions offered in newsgroups are guaranteed
to be worth the price paid.
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>
>You have only to look at Derek's mis-spelled spelling flames,
>grammatically incorrect grammar flames, and insistence that a couple
>of inches of potential energy is a significant factor in glider
>crashes, to understand that he is in the "unconscious incompetence"
>quadrant; it is natural that people with a didactic tendency will try
>to help him move to "conscious incompetence" however resistant he
>might be to the idea.
You are a fool.
Why not throw more shit up in the air and see where it lands - perhaps
on your head?
Percy Picacity
news:89g4rh...@mid.individual.net:
I don't think this post is at all inflammatory. It is humorous, and
it is entirely possible that "victim" of the humour might see the
irony. Or he might point out that he does not support compulsory
helmet wearing even though he thinks they are good thing: I don't
know. Plenty of time to stop the thread if someone decides to take
offence. This looks like friendly banter which should be allowable
in moderation.
--
Percy Picacity
Tom Crispin
Given the fact that urcm moderators take into account the posting
history of individual posters, especially to urc(ycling), they should
be aware of the 885 post flamefest to which Tony Raven and Derek C are
significant contributors.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/627a97c5674cc356?hl=en#
But maybe they only take into account the posting history of selected
posters.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>Given the fact that urcm moderators take into account the posting
>history of individual posters, especially to urc(ycling), they should
>be aware of the 885 post flamefest to which Tony Raven and Derek C are
>significant contributors.
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/627a97c5674cc356?hl=en#
>But maybe they only take into account the posting history of selected
>posters.
Or maybe they are taking into account Tony Raven's long history of
good contributions to urc before he was driven off by JMS and trying
to encourage him to stay.
Alan Braggins
I think it's fair comment based entirely on Derek's past urcm posts alone.
And we've been told we've been over-moderating. Are you suggesting we should
be stricter after all?
Percy Picacity
news:slrni38km...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
While I agree with the decision, I think the rationale you suggest
lacks integrity. Either it is acceptable comment or it isn't -
whether it is justifiable according to a point-scoring exercise
seems somewhat partisan - and is Derek C actually a strong advocate
of *compulsory* helmets, which would be the only relevance of
"nannying"?
--
Percy Picacity
JMS
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 07:11:53 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>Given the fact that urcm moderators take into account the posting
>>history of individual posters, especially to urc(ycling), they should
>>be aware of the 885 post flamefest to which Tony Raven and Derek C are
>>significant contributors.
>>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/627a97c5674cc356?hl=en#
>>But maybe they only take into account the posting history of selected
>>posters.
>
>Or maybe they are taking into account Tony Raven's long history of
>good contributions to urc before he was driven off by JMS and trying
>to encourage him to stay.
>
>Guy
You live up to your name yet again - Porky.
Oh - I drove him away did I - I did not realise I was such a powerful
entity.
Or is it he who is just weak and feeble with no will power - just like
Porky.
Feel free to explain just how you know this - and what it was that I
actually did.
Unless of course this is just another Porky "lets throw some more shit
up in the air" and see if it lands on Porky's head moment.
PS I have been following this and other threads - if anyone wants to
see a perfect case of two or three individuals ganging up on someone
who disagrees with them, there are excellent example. You, Raven and
Clinch - just like the old days and the warm welcome I received in
URC)
PPS I had forgotten you and he were "close" - I think you asked for
support in the Lou Knee saga - but Raven fucked up. He later posted
under three different names from the same IP address - again, a bit
like you)
Ian Jackson
Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>Given the fact that urcm moderators take into account the posting
>history of individual posters, especially to urc(ycling), they should
>be aware of the 885 post flamefest to which Tony Raven and Derek C are
>significant contributors.
>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/627a97c5674cc356?hl=en#
That's the helmet flamewar which was crossposted to cam.transport.
You seem to be suggesting that just because one justification that can
be advanced for the banning of JMS is JMS's atrocious behaviour in
other newsgroups, anything someone doesn't like might be used
similarly to ban other posters.
But there is a world of difference between the behaviour of the
posters to thread you refer to (on both sides) and the things JMS has
done. (I'm excluding anything JMS may have posted to that thread as I
won't have seen it.)
I thought there was really nothing wrong with Tony Raven's
contributions to that thread, other than perhaps an understandable but
doomed desire to try for himself to get some sense out of Derek C,
rather than just taking the word of others that it wasn't going to get
anywhere. There wasn't anything abusive about Derek's behaviour,
either. It was just really stubborn and thick-headed and as a
consequence often repetitive.
In a moderated group I expect that some of the more pithy comments
from Derek C's opponents would probably have been moderated out, and
some of Derek's repetition. But in neither case does that flamewar
suggest that either person should be considered for a ban.
>But maybe they only take into account the posting history of selected
>posters.
Personally I think we should take into account the posting behaviour
outside urcm of anyone, but only when it's relevant. (NB that I
exclude people's behaviour before urcm was created, because it was
agreed that people would get a clean slate.)
Another example of a situation where behaviour elsewhere is relevant
is spam. But then we know that you also objected to us rejecting
spam. That says more about your desire to find fault than about us.
--
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
Matt B
> In article<946836hvp6nhute9n...@4ax.com>,
> Tom Crispin<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>> Given the fact that urcm moderators take into account the posting
>> history of individual posters, especially to urc(ycling), they should
>> be aware of the 885 post flamefest to which Tony Raven and Derek C are
>> significant contributors.
>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/627a97c5674cc356?hl=en#
>
> That's the helmet flamewar which was crossposted to cam.transport.
>
> You seem to be suggesting that just because one justification that can
> be advanced for the banning of JMS is JMS's atrocious behaviour in
> other newsgroups,
Purported justification for /alleged/ atrocious behaviour. Sometimes
the best form of defence /is/ attack.
> anything someone doesn't like might be used
> similarly to ban other posters.
>
> But there is a world of difference between the behaviour of the
> posters to thread you refer to (on both sides) and the things JMS has
> done. (I'm excluding anything JMS may have posted to that thread as I
> won't have seen it.)
One may have reacted differently from the other given the inexcusable
treatment they both (and others) received at the hands of the URC old
guard. That though is not a valid excuse for then blaming them for what
happened. OTOH, the behaviour of several of the URC old guard clearly
shows how inflammatory and unreasonable they can be if given a free-reign.
> I thought there was really nothing wrong with Tony Raven's
> contributions to that thread,
Your judgement, with your prejudices going into the thought process.
Those same prejudices are possibly part of the reason for the problems
being experienced by URCM now.
> other than perhaps an understandable but
> doomed desire to try for himself to get some sense out of Derek C,
> rather than just taking the word of others that it wasn't going to get
> anywhere.
Perception of "sense" and "non-sense" is not necessarily black and
white, and moderators should attempt to tolerate all shades of grey.
> There wasn't anything abusive about Derek's behaviour,
> either. It was just really stubborn and thick-headed and as a
> consequence often repetitive.
It takes two sides to be repetitive. You are allying yourself with one
side of the argument here - as a result of your prejudices possibly.
> In a moderated group I expect that some of the more pithy comments
> from Derek C's opponents would probably have been moderated out, and
> some of Derek's repetition. But in neither case does that flamewar
> suggest that either person should be considered for a ban.
In what way did the behaviour of "Derek C's opponents" differ from
behaviour that might have been used to support a URCM ban, or even the
removal of pass-list status?
>> But maybe they only take into account the posting history of selected
>> posters.
>
> Personally I think we should take into account the posting behaviour
> outside urcm of anyone, but only when it's relevant. (NB that I
> exclude people's behaviour before urcm was created, because it was
> agreed that people would get a clean slate.)
Ah! So the behaviour of "Derek C's opponents" in that thread was
relevant, in your view. How bad would it have had to be to justify
removal from the pass-list?
> Another example of a situation where behaviour elsewhere is relevant
> is spam. But then we know that you also objected to us rejecting
> spam.
One man's spam may be another man's useful resource.
> That says more about your desire to find fault than about us.
If a post contains stuff that might be of interest to cyclists then why
reject it?
--
Matt B
Alan Braggins
>ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote in
>news:slrni38km...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>
>> In article <ojg536t920ga6t3os...@4ax.com>, Tom
>> Crispin wrote:
>>>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:52:18 +0100, Tony Raven
>>><tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Derek C wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You couldn't make this up if you tried. The Nanny State gone
>>>>> mad. Think I'll go and wrap myself in cotton wool and stay
>>>>> indoors for the rest of my life!
>>>>
>>>>Oh the irony again from the man that wants to wrap us all up in
>>>>polystyrene foam.
>>>
>>>If this isn't an attept to bring on old flame fest from urc into
>>>urcm, I don't know what is...
>>>
>>>Message-ID: <I5KdnTnvne1l2K_R...@bt.com>
>>
>> I think it's fair comment based entirely on Derek's past urcm
>> posts alone.
>>
>> And we've been told we've been over-moderating. Are you suggesting
>> we should be stricter after all?
>>
>While I agree with the decision, I think the rationale you suggest
>lacks integrity. Either it is acceptable comment or it isn't -
If you agree with the decision, presumably you agree that it is
an acceptable comment. So where's the problem?
I mentioned Derek's past urcm posts not because they are necessary to
justify it being acceptable, but to refute Tom's suggestion that it
could only be an attempt to bring a urc flame fest into urcm (or at
least that Tom didn't know what else it could be).
Tom Crispin
<ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <946836hvp6nhute9n...@4ax.com>,
>Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>Given the fact that urcm moderators take into account the posting
>>history of individual posters, especially to urc(ycling), they should
>>be aware of the 885 post flamefest to which Tony Raven and Derek C are
>>significant contributors.
>>http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/627a97c5674cc356?hl=en#
>
>That's the helmet flamewar which was crossposted to cam.transport.
>
>You seem to be suggesting that just because one justification that can
>be advanced for the banning of JMS is JMS's atrocious behaviour in
>other newsgroups, anything someone doesn't like might be used
>similarly to ban other posters.
1. I thought you had me killfiled.
2. I was not suggesting a ban on anyone.
3. I was suggesting that blocking a deliberately inflamatory post
might be appropriate.
>But there is a world of difference between the behaviour of the
>posters to thread you refer to (on both sides) and the things JMS has
>done. (I'm excluding anything JMS may have posted to that thread as I
>won't have seen it.)
>
>I thought there was really nothing wrong with Tony Raven's
>contributions to that thread, other than perhaps an understandable but
>doomed desire to try for himself to get some sense out of Derek C,
>rather than just taking the word of others that it wasn't going to get
>anywhere. There wasn't anything abusive about Derek's behaviour,
>either. It was just really stubborn and thick-headed and as a
>consequence often repetitive.
It doesn't surprise me that you found Tony Raven's posts in the
flamefest saintly.
>In a moderated group I expect that some of the more pithy comments
>from Derek C's opponents would probably have been moderated out, and
>some of Derek's repetition. But in neither case does that flamewar
>suggest that either person should be considered for a ban.
>
>>But maybe they only take into account the posting history of selected
>>posters.
>
>Personally I think we should take into account the posting behaviour
>outside urcm of anyone, but only when it's relevant. (NB that I
>exclude people's behaviour before urcm was created, because it was
>agreed that people would get a clean slate.)
>
>Another example of a situation where behaviour elsewhere is relevant
>is spam. But then we know that you also objected to us rejecting
>spam. That says more about your desire to find fault than about us.
Eh!?
Oh... Would you be talking about this message of mine?
Message-ID: <7phmj511celtij47j...@4ax.com>
I questioned a moderation decision about blocking a post that appeared
to be advertising a new cycling forum.
The blocked post probably read something like this post to urc:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/8aaaecf096073d07?hl=en
So you claim that I object to you rejecting spam, based on a post
which is not spam.
How low will your misrepresentation of the facts stoop?
Tom Crispin
Braggins) wrote:
No. I am suggesting that all posters should be treated equally.
I was blocked for asking a regular poster why he displayed an
anymosity towards a charity worker. It was a fair question based on
the posters urcm posts about the charity worker.
But "Oh the irony again from the man that wants to wrap us all up in
polystyrene foam." is a perfectly acceptable statement to make.
That doesn't appear to be treating all posters equally.
Clive George
As low as yours? That post was definitely spam. Posted to many places
under different nyms, including non-cycling NGs.
It seems I'm not alone in this conclusion. The forum advertised has
almost no messages on it - not even the brief flurry you'd expect from a
genuine attempt to create such a forum.
I know you were arguing it wasn't spam, but you were wrong. The fact
that you don't believe you were wrong doesn't change that.
Geoff Berrow
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>How low will your misrepresentation of the facts stoop?
I'm surprised he keeps doing it. There again, he always makes such a
piss-poor job of it I suppose he needs the practice.
Clive George
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:36:25 +0100, Tom Crispin
> <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>> How low will your misrepresentation of the facts stoop?
>
>
> I'm surprised he keeps doing it. There again, he always makes such a
> piss-poor job of it I suppose he needs the practice.
In the case in question, at the time you seemed to agree that Tom was
wrong, and that it was spam.
It's Tom who's misrepresenting things here, not Ian.
Geoff Berrow
And I see you are getting pretty good at it too.
I think you've made a pretty big leap to get to that from what I said.
Guy said "Pick better fights", and I agreed with him. In general I'm
a fan of Usenet and I think pointers to web forums are not a good
idea.
However spam has a precise definition in Usenet and this ain't it.
This post is, at worst, advertising and as the charter of the group
does not forbid it, it follows that Tom could reasonably suppose that
it may be allowed.
The committee should probably have pointed out the lack of a clause on
advertising. It may well have done with a less pig-headed and
know-it-all proponent.
Tom Crispin
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Nonsense, Wanabe...
Ian accused me of objecting to the rejection of spam.
This was a misrepresentation. The disagreement was about what is and
what isn't spam. I don't count a polite ad to a cycling newsgroup
about a new cycling forum to be spam. It might be spam to a group
about playing chess, but that is, or should be, irrelevant.
Clive George
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:03:25 +0100, Clive George
> <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/2010 18:53, Geoff Berrow wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 17:36:25 +0100, Tom Crispin
>>> <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How low will your misrepresentation of the facts stoop?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm surprised he keeps doing it. There again, he always makes such a
>>> piss-poor job of it I suppose he needs the practice.
>>
>> In the case in question, at the time you seemed to agree that Tom was
>> wrong, and that it was spam.
>>
>> It's Tom who's misrepresenting things here, not Ian.
>
> Nonsense, Wanabe...
Sometimes I wonder if you're a decent human being. Then you remind me
you aren't.
> Ian accused me of objecting to the rejection of spam.
>
> This was a misrepresentation. The disagreement was about what is and
> what isn't spam. I don't count a polite ad to a cycling newsgroup
> about a new cycling forum to be spam. It might be spam to a group
> about playing chess, but that is, or should be, irrelevant.
History shows those of us who thought it was spam were right. There was
no intent to support that forum, it was just put up in an attempt to get
some advertising revenue.
Geoff Berrow
I doubt it. There /is/ an advertising banner but as it's a free forum
hosted by proboards that's not unreasonable.
Clive George
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:08:22 +0100, Clive George
> <cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> History shows those of us who thought it was spam were right. There was
>> no intent to support that forum, it was just put up in an attempt to get
>> some advertising revenue.
>
> I doubt it. There /is/ an advertising banner but as it's a free forum
> hosted by proboards that's not unreasonable.
If the guy had made any decent attempt to promote his board, I'd be less
sure, but he didn't - knock up the board, spam all over the place while
trying to stay withing BI rules and using throwaway addresses, no
attempt to engage people and persuade them to use it.
Either the person behind it is a hopeless romantic (build it and they'll
come, but no idea how to make that work) or somebody trying to get some
money from google ads. And I go for the latter - the former would
typically be a real person who'd put in some effort.
Tom Crispin
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
Whatever fortune the poster may or may not be making from his forum, I
would not define the post made as spam, just as a potentially useful
pointer to a cycling forum.
For Jackson to then claim that I support spam being allowed in the
moderated group is a gross misrepresentation of my position.
This post to uk.rec.walking I would label as spam:
Message-ID:<24ba74e9-044f-4b60...@n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
And I would certainly support the moderators if they blocked the post.
Let us please discuss Jackson's misrepresentation and not discuss what
is and is not spam.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
> I don't count a polite ad to a cycling newsgroup
>about a new cycling forum to be spam. It might be spam to a group
>about playing chess, but that is, or should be, irrelevant.
Yeah, right. And the use of throwaway addresses and the fact that it was
also promoted to other groups where it was of no conceivable relevance are
just coincidences.
Tom, you have a genius for trying to defend the indefensible.
Tom Crispin
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:56:53 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>> I don't count a polite ad to a cycling newsgroup
>>about a new cycling forum to be spam. It might be spam to a group
>>about playing chess, but that is, or should be, irrelevant.
>
>Yeah, right. And the use of throwaway addresses and the fact that it was
>also promoted to other groups where it was of no conceivable relevance are
>just coincidences.
>
><http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.autos.macho-trucks/browse_thread/thread/1ab9ada204a12fd1/394ea7ba33019578>
>
>Tom, you have a genius for trying to defend the indefensible.
No, I am just defining what I do and do not consider to be spam.
Posting ID and promotion to other groups, provided BI<20, are all
irrelevent in defining spam.
Content (and BI>20) is everything.
But like George you miss the point: Jackson misrepresented my
position.
I fully support the blocking of spam in urcm.
Sara Merriman
Tom Crispin <kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
> I was blocked for asking a regular poster why he displayed an
> anymosity towards a charity worker. It was a fair question based on
> the posters urcm posts about the charity worker.
No Tom, your post was rejected because it was phrased in a rather
aggressive manner towards another poster. I'd have rejected it too.
--
Sara
Cuddler of rats, cats and husband
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:45:26 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
><guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:56:53 +0100, Tom Crispin
>><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't count a polite ad to a cycling newsgroup
>>>about a new cycling forum to be spam. It might be spam to a group
>>>about playing chess, but that is, or should be, irrelevant.
>>
>>Yeah, right. And the use of throwaway addresses and the fact that it was
>>also promoted to other groups where it was of no conceivable relevance are
>>just coincidences.
>>
>><http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.autos.macho-trucks/browse_thread/thread/1ab9ada204a12fd1/394ea7ba33019578>
>>
>>Tom, you have a genius for trying to defend the indefensible.
>
>No, I am just defining what I do and do not consider to be spam.
Right, and your judgment is out on this, as in several other cases where
you've decided to nail your colours to the mast of some sunken wreck. It was
spam. End of.
>Posting ID and promotion to other groups, provided BI<20, are all
>irrelevent in defining spam.
False. "Spam is the use of electronic messaging systems [...] to send
unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately." In this case the sending was
clearly indiscriminate, as evidence the "macho trucks" group. That one or
more of the groups might have had some tangential relevance does not change
the fact that it was spam.
>Content (and BI>20) is everything.
BI>20 is a limit, not an entitlement.
>But like George you miss the point: Jackson misrepresented my
>position.
No, I am saying you called it wrong again and should pick better fights. I
made no comment on your position on spam generally.
Geoff Berrow
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>No, I am saying you called it wrong again and should pick better fights. I
>made no comment on your position on spam generally.
I think we're at the point where I again say I agree, as I did then,
that this wasn't a point that should be per sued. But that's not the
issue now.
Having said that and having looked at the forum it does look like it
could be of interest to cyclists and I can see why Tom or any other
cyclist might think it was a good idea to pass it on.
It is quite a leap from that to say that Tom 'objected to [the
moderators] rejecting spam', which, I believe, is the thrust of Tom's
argument now.
To state a general case based on a specific case is an argument not
worthy of one of Tom's pupils let alone a highly educated and
influential moderator.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>I think we're at the point where I again say I agree, as I did then,
>that this wasn't a point that should be per sued. But that's not the
>issue now.
[...]
>It is quite a leap from that to say that Tom 'objected to [the
>moderators] rejecting spam', which, I believe, is the thrust of Tom's
>argument now.
Yes. It's a rhetorical device that relies on exploiting the absence of
qualifiers. Tom 'objected to [the moderators] rejecting spam' is correct
only if read as Tom 'objected to [the moderators] rejecting /a message
identified as/ spam'. Such rhetorical devices are common if not particularly
helpful.
On the other hand Tom does have a regrettable history of picking such doomed
causes. He has a belief on principle that the moderators should have been
elected, he has a belief on principle that the moderation panel he opposes
has acted more aggressively than they should, and he has as a result argued
the toss over numerous rejections on which the consensus view is
unambiguously in favour of rejection, notwithstanding the moderators'
historical tendency heavy-handedness.
If I were a moderator I would, I'm afraid, be inclined to discount Tom's
voice on the basis of crying wolf rather too often. I understand why he does
it, and I admire and respect Tom as a person, but he has in my view shown
poor judgment with respect to individual disputed moderation decisions. This
is a shame: had he picked his cases with more care I think he could have
been an effective voice as there is no doubt as to his sincerity and
commitment as a supporter of cycling.
Tom Crispin
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
Again you miss the point.
I have no problem with you defining the post as spam.
I no issue with Jackon's clique blocking it in their belief it is
spam.
I do have an issue with Jackson misrepresenting my position on the
blocking of spam.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>Again you miss the point.
Or you did,
>I have no problem with you defining the post as spam.
No, you have (or had) a problem with the *mods* deciding it's spam. However,
the consensus is: it is spam.
That was the beginning and end of the point I was making. Now, Ian may well
be falling foul of the common fallacy of hasty generalisation, we'd have to
see what happened with other spam to be sure how you'd react generally - for
most of us spam is spam, on topic or not, and spam gets canned, but you seem
to view things slightly differently based on the sole case presented thus
far. So the jury's still out. It is ambiguous either way and to pretend
otherwise would be foolish. You can't say "I don't support spam" because on
the one occasion someone spammed the group you obviously did. You can't say
"Tom supports spam" because there's only been one case.
You can say, with some justification, that Tom picks his fights badly.
Tom Crispin
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:46:19 +0100, Tom Crispin
><kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>>Again you miss the point.
>
>Or you did,
>
>>I have no problem with you defining the post as spam.
>
>No, you have (or had) a problem with the *mods* deciding it's spam. However,
>the consensus is: it is spam.
That is a different matter - nothing to do with Jackson's
misrepresentation.
>That was the beginning and end of the point I was making.
Clearly not - because you go on...
>Now, Ian may well
>be falling foul of the common fallacy of hasty generalisation, we'd have to
>see what happened with other spam to be sure how you'd react generally - for
>most of us spam is spam, on topic or not, and spam gets canned, but you seem
>to view things slightly differently based on the sole case presented thus
>far. So the jury's still out. It is ambiguous either way and to pretend
>otherwise would be foolish. You can't say "I don't support spam" because on
>the one occasion someone spammed the group you obviously did.
I shall say it again. That post was not, in my opinion, spam because
it was within the group's charter and BI<20.
Can you define your definition of spam?
>You can't say
>"Tom supports spam" because there's only been one case.
Thank you.
>You can say, with some justification, that Tom picks his fights badly.
In your opinion.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<kije....@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>>That was the beginning and end of the point I was making.
>Clearly not - because you go on...
Do you understand the difference between "was" and "am now"?
>>Now, Ian may well
>>be falling foul of the common fallacy of hasty generalisation, we'd have to
>>see what happened with other spam to be sure how you'd react generally - for
>>most of us spam is spam, on topic or not, and spam gets canned, but you seem
>>to view things slightly differently based on the sole case presented thus
>>far. So the jury's still out. It is ambiguous either way and to pretend
>>otherwise would be foolish. You can't say "I don't support spam" because on
>>the one occasion someone spammed the group you obviously did.
>I shall say it again. That post was not, in my opinion, spam because
>it was within the group's charter and BI<20.
And I shall say it again: yes it was. The proof is in the fact that it was
also sent to alt.autos.macho-trucks. As far a I can tell you are the only
person who does not consider that message to be spam.
>Can you define your definition of spam?
"Spam is the use of electronic messaging systems [...] to send
unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately."
>>You can say, with some justification, that Tom picks his fights badly.
>In your opinion.
And that of several other people who have no obvious axe to grind. Just
because you think the mods reject too many messages does not mean that every
rejected message is rejected wrongly.
Tony
> And I shall say it again
Try not to.
Make your point, move on.
--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
books -> http://www.bookthing.co.uk
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]
The Todal
"Tony" <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
news:i16o79$h0p$3...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...
> On 09/07/2010 09:49, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> And I shall say it again
>
> Try not to.
>
> Make your point, move on.
How about "make your point but in the CORRECT newsgroup and move on"? How'd
that be?
This is a group to discuss moderation. Cycling is off topic. What
happened, did you all lose your way? Is this a cyclist thing, just
monopolising the superhighway with your nasty little machines, slowing
everyone else down?
Andy Leighton
>
> "Tony" <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
> news:i16o79$h0p$3...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...
>> On 09/07/2010 09:49, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>> And I shall say it again
>>
>> Try not to.
>>
>> Make your point, move on.
>
> How about "make your point but in the CORRECT newsgroup and move on"? How'd
> that be?
>
> This is a group to discuss moderation. Cycling is off topic.
Actually this discussion has been nominally about a moderation decision
(and Tom's complaint about it). That complaint was last year. I don't
think that there is anything more to be said about it at this late stage
and that everyone should move on.
> happened, did you all lose your way? Is this a cyclist thing, just
> monopolising the superhighway with your nasty little machines, slowing
> everyone else down?
That doesn't help. It just brings up more non-moderation issues.
If you can't keep your messages completely on-topic why would you
expect anyone else to?
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Tony
I wonder what I did to upset you so much.
Tom and Guy are arguing over a moderation decision, not cycling. Tom
says one thing, Guy responds, Tom restates his original position, Guy
responds, Tom restates his original position, Guy responds.
One might conclude that's the behaviour that upset people in URC so much
in the first place.
I got bored and when Guy said 'And I shall say it again' I decided to
ask him not to. Frankly, on Usenet, none of us take that advice anyway,
but so be it.
I've tried to avoid getting engaged in debates about cycling in
unn.moderation because I agree with you on the purpose of the main
group, but in this case, it wasn't about cycling.
The Todal
> On 09/07/2010 10:11, The Todal wrote:
>> "Tony"<to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:i16o79$h0p$3...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...
>>> On 09/07/2010 09:49, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I shall say it again
>>>
>>> Try not to.
>>>
>>> Make your point, move on.
>>
>> How about "make your point but in the CORRECT newsgroup and move
>> on"? How'd that be?
>>
>> This is a group to discuss moderation. Cycling is off topic. What
>> happened, did you all lose your way? Is this a cyclist thing, just
>> monopolising the superhighway with your nasty little machines,
>> slowing everyone else down?
>
> I wonder what I did to upset you so much.
No, I didn't mind your post, I just thought others were getting repetitive.
Maybe my machine gun wasn't aimed with sufficient care... Sorry.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>I got bored and when Guy said 'And I shall say it again' I decided to
>ask him not to. Frankly, on Usenet, none of us take that advice anyway,
>but so be it.
Point taken. Spam is another of my hot-button topics, having managed mail
systems in the past. I think spammers should be drowned in a vat of cowshed
slurry.
Tom Crispin
<an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:11:48 +0100, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Tony" <to...@darkstorm.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:i16o79$h0p$3...@matrix.darkstorm.co.uk...
>>> On 09/07/2010 09:49, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>
>>>> And I shall say it again
>>>
>>> Try not to.
>>>
>>> Make your point, move on.
>>
>> How about "make your point but in the CORRECT newsgroup and move on"? How'd
>> that be?
>>
>> This is a group to discuss moderation. Cycling is off topic.
>
>Actually this discussion has been nominally about a moderation decision
>(and Tom's complaint about it). That complaint was last year. I don't
>think that there is anything more to be said about it at this late stage
>and that everyone should move on.
Do please keep up... The complaint is about Jackon's
misrepresentation, made 2 days ago, not last year.
pcb1962
> In article <cab936p70s6pr1nj93fc5d4nt4miqb3...@4ax.com>,
> Tom Crispin <kije.rem...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I was blocked for asking a regular poster why he displayed an
> > anymosity towards a charity worker. It was a fair question based on
> > the posters urcm posts about the charity worker.
>
> No Tom, your post was rejected because it was phrased in a rather
> aggressive manner towards another poster. I'd have rejected it too.
Since Guy's only intention in posting the picture was to hold the
subject up to ridicule the manner of Tom's reply was entirely
justifiable.
Sara Merriman
<56949942-eba8-46e8...@m18g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
pcb1962 <pcb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
I didn't think so.