VOTE NO TO UK.REC.CYCLING.MODERATED
jms
URGENT - DO IT NOW.
There is a proposal to form a censored group
called uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
See details at message id:
<cfv2-uk.rec.cycling.moderated-20090720180743$3d...@gradwell.net>
Anyone at all can vote on the formation of the group or not - this
post is to encourage people to vote on this matter - and to vote NO -
there is no need for a censored group.
There have been on-going problems in the current group uk.rec.cycling
- which many of you may have found already if you wandered in there to
ask a question or express a point of view about cycling.
If you have, then I would suspect that you, like many others were not
welcomed there.
The group has a justified reputation of being run by a clique - for
the members of that clique - they have driven many previous regulars
away - and they do not welcome newcomers.
They have some very "odd" points of view - which they push at every
opportunity.
If they follow their current stance, you will not be allowed to
express certain points of view in the proposed group:
You must not suggest that cyclists should wear helmets.
You must not suggest that cyclists should wear high-viz clothing.
You must not suggest that cyclists obey the Highway Code.
You must not suggest that cyclists use the facilities provided for
them - cycle paths etc. Many of the posters there advocate ignoring
cycle paths and cycle lanes - as they say they have as much right as a
motorist to be on the road.
Tell that to people who pay car tax and
insurance!!
You must not criticise cyclists for jumping red lights.
You must not criticise cyclists riding on pavements: If you are a
pedestrian - please jump out of the way of any cyclists riding on the
pavement.
A number of cyclists wear cameras on their heads to record motorists
and then publish videos of car drivers actions; you are encouraged to
report the car drivers to the police. (They even identify the number
plate in case you can't read it)
They have now decided to try and form their own censored group to keep
undesirables (ie ordinary road users - particularly motorists) out
and not allow them to express a "controversial" point of view.
There has already been a hand picked group of moderators chosen. There
have been objections to some of those proposed - and despite there
being calls for a vote on their selection - this has been ignored. A
number have demonstrated their lack of fitness to be a moderator of
anything.
eg:
One of them has altered posts to make out someone said something when
they didn't.
Another believes that ideally people should have to register their
names and address before they use a moderated group
Another has suggested that objectors may make malicious phone-calls to
the vote-counters.
(These are not the views of all moderators - but they demonstrate the
unsuitability of those already chosen, and the method by which it was
done).
There has been a vigorous discussion of the proposal in the groups
uk.net.news.announce, uk.net.news.config, uk.rec.cycling.
Have a read - you will see many points of views and objections raised
- and ignored.
I urge you to vote NO against the formation of this censored group.
You may do this by sending a bare email (with a valid :
To: xu...@request.ukvoting.org.uk
Subject: Re: 1st CFV - Create moderated newsgroup
uk.rec.cycling.moderated
You will receive a request to vote and the instructions
Reply to the email - following instruction making sure that you vote
NO.
Make sure that you use a valid email address.
Get moving - votes must be in by: 23:59:59 BST, 7th August 2009.
(Of course this is all based on my personal view. You may wish to
vote YES once you have read the discussion)
--
Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka
uk.rec.cycling.censored
Blah
> VOTE NO TO UK.REC.CYCLING.MODERATED
>
Why? The clique you describe will bugger off into the moderated group,
leaving the unmoderated group in peace.
Why on earth would you not want that?
bysta...@googlemail.com
> VOTE NO TO UK.REC.CYCLING.MODERATED
>
> URGENT - DO IT NOW.
>
> There is a proposal to form a censored group
> called uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
>
> See details at message id:
I went through all this when uk,legal.moderated was set up. It was a
fuss about nothing IMO. This too.
molley222
wrote:
>VOTE NO TO UK.REC.CYCLING.MODERATED
>
jms - or judith smith
hows the gender identity sessions going ?
--
The Wanderer
> VOTE NO TO UK.REC.CYCLING.MODERATED
You are Bob Brenchley AICM�5
--
The Wanderer
When you hear the toilet flush and your child says 'Uh oh'
It's already too late!
jms
You are probably correct.
uk.legal.moderated works very well - and I find the moderators very
fair - balanced.
uk.rec.cycling.moderated will not work well - it will not be fair and
balanced - it will be censored.
That is what I object to.
I have never seen so many objectionable responses - particularly to
newcomers. I found that when I made my very first post there; and it
was that which generated my "interest" in the group.
Some people will be blacklisted because of their views - and their
determination to argue their corner. I can safely predict that now.
I suppose that people who actually think it is OK to jump red lights,
to ride on the pavements, to take a bike plus trailer round a
supermarket, to wear cameras on their heads, to chose to ride
low-lying dangerous machines on main roads etc are "different".
(Obviously that is not all of them - there are more "normal" people
there as well - but they are not well represented.)
The whole process of its creation is a charade: eg - you will not be
able to email the moderators from a hotmail or live account because
the moderators system does not interface correctly with those
Microsoft systems. This is a Microsoft problem!! Microsoft have been
asked to make their systems compliant - but they have refused.
I agree this is not actually relevant to the discussion - but as an
aside, that sort of mentality says an awful lot about a reluctance or
inability to accept the real world.
I genuinely could not give a toss whether the group is formed or not.
jms
wrote:
I see what you mean - I would have guessed that molley was a girl's
name - is it not?
Anyway - Molly222 - what name do you normally post under?
Hoping to get an extra vote are you?
jms
<the.wa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:03:27 +0100, jms wrote:
>
>> VOTE NO TO UK.REC.CYCLING.MODERATED
>
>You are Bob Brenchley AICM�5
Bloody Hell!!!
That is the worse accusation that has ever been made to me.
Unfair - below the belt.
Paul Hyett
in uk.legal :
>VOTE NO TO UK.REC.CYCLING.MODERATED
>
>URGENT - DO IT NOW.
Why are you fishing in a group that has nothing to do with cycling
though?
AIUI, the rules only allow canvassing in groups with a vested
interest...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
The Wanderer
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 22:11:11 +0100, The Wanderer
> <the.wa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:03:27 +0100, jms wrote:
>>
>>> VOTE NO TO UK.REC.CYCLING.MODERATED
>>
>>You are Bob Brenchley AICM�5
>
>
> Bloody Hell!!!
>
>
> That is the worse accusation that has ever been made to me.
>
> Unfair - below the belt.
Not at all, because your arguments are as irrational, illogical and
unfounded as those of 'Bob Brenchley' and his ilk during the discussions
about the formation of uk.legal.moderated.
I have no interest in cycling, and I have no intention of voting, but if I
did it wouldn't be 'no'.
--
The Wanderer
A consultant will borrow your watch
Then charge if you ask him the time.
The Wanderer
Yes, but there are plenty of kooks who frequent ukl who'd be delighted to
disrupt sensible discussion elsewhere......
--
The Wanderer
Trying to extract useful information from the Internet
is like trying to sip from a firehose.
Mr Benn
"The Wanderer" <the.wa...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zit1ixopp1k7$.9tuxo8w7l34u$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 20:03:27 +0100, jms wrote:
>
>> VOTE NO TO UK.REC.CYCLING.MODERATED
>
> You are Bob Brenchley AICM�5
Abuse report sent :-)