Why not make trolling illegal?

[M Wicks]

The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy
two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls,
who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up cyclists'
and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be sad enough to
spend their free time doing this is another discussion, but that is
the situation at any rate. Group A trolls include 'Dave' and 'Judith'.

Group B consists of the slightly more 'subtle' trolls, who pretend to
be on the newsgroup for legitimate and respectable reasons, but in the
end are just motivated by exactly the same anti-cycling sentiment as
Group A. This group includes 'JNugent', 'NM' and of course the fake
cyclist 'John Benn'. In many ways I find this group more frustrating,
as they so persistently deny that they are present for anything but
the most noble of reasons, despite making it obvious what they really
think by always, no matter what, siding against the cyclist(s) in any
given scenario.

Anyway, there is further reading elsewhere on the ongoing and very
specific problems that uk.rec.cycling has unfortunately experienced.
We are trying to do something about it. Various legal remedies are on
the table. But these rely on showing that some kind of 'harassment' of
individual cyclists has occurred, which is tricky. And it is
understood by all concerned that the 'harassment' accusations are just
the method by which we are having to bring these trolls to justice,
and that the real reason why they are being taken to court is to
punish them for trolling and destroying a valuable and once pleasant
newsgroup with their constant, vicious jibes and their worthless and
incorrect opinions, all of which are carefully calculated to stoke the
fire and cause maximum friction.

It occurs to me that these 'harassment' accusations are not the way to
do it, firstly because it is difficult to make them stick, and
secondly because it does not seem entirely honest to accuse someone of
'harassment' of individuals when really you're trying to punish them
for trolling newsgroups. So it seems to me that the best solution, at
least for uk.rec.cycling, is simply to make trolling illegal.

'What about free speech?', I hear you ask. Well, it is generally
accepted that sometimes we need to make exceptions to allowing free
speech where it is in the public interest, e.g. with hate speech. So
why not make another exception with trolling? How exactly is it in the
public interest to allow the likes of 'Dave' and 'Judith' to
systematically and irrevocably destroy valuable Internet resources?
Isn't it much more in the public interest to stop them? Your favourite
newsgroup or forum could be next if we do not stop these worthless
individuals from spreading their hate. Trolling is on the increase as
more and more idiots spend more and more time online, and so society
needs to act robustly and quickly in order to show that it is not
going to tolerate such extremely antisocial behaviour.

I will be writing to my MP about this subject, using uk.rec.cycling as
my example. I implore you to do the same. I will not rest until
someone posting 'Why not wear a helmet?' on uk.rec.cycling with faux
innocence, or going on about 'Road Tax' yet again, can expect to be
brought before magistrates and punished to the fullest extent of the
law. That seems entirely reasonable. You are not exempt from the
requirement to conduct yourself as a decent, law-abiding human being
just because you are behind a keyboard. We generally believe that
people who go round trying to make everyone else miserable deserve
their comeuppance, and so 'Dave' richly deserves his, but 'JNugent'
does as well. Trolling, whether 'subtle' or blatant, needs to be made
illegal. And after reading my post, I know that at least some of you
will agree.

Thanks,
M Wicks

[Martin]

On 09/07/2012 23:19, M Wicks wrote:

Fuck off and grow a pair of balls

[R. Mark Clayton]

"M Wicks" <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52ea386b-e5ea-4bea...@n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem

So does this one - he is called Doug*, why don't you and he stay on cycling
groups and stop trolling this one?






* he often posts about "pavement motorist kills cyclists" or similar,
although if you bother to read his posts they often don't involve pavements,
motorists, motorists driving on pavements or cyclists.

Doug would also make news group posting illegal, but only for people he does
not agree with

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 09/07/2012 23:19, M Wicks wrote:

What a tosser. More time to waste than I have.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[Sleepalot]

M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:

Probably something to dowith freedom of speech.

[NM]

Who in this context is the 'we' you refer to in your risable nonsense
about making free speech illegal? Do you have allies in your quest? If
so please let us have their names.

What gives you the right to determine what is written by others?

What gives you the right to determine the language others use?

What gives you the right to expect others to adhere to your
'christian' values?

I don't understand what you are doing here, you claim you don't like
it and there is a perfectly good moderated group for pillocks like
you, why do you persist in posting here? Are you a masochist?

[djornsk]

Doug is an irreplaceable jewel of uk.legal and I quite enjoy his posts,
but is he as loved and appreciated in a whole newsgroup of Dougs?

j

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 10/07/2012 00:43, Martin wrote:
> On 09/07/2012 23:19, M Wicks wrote:
>
> Fuck off and grow a pair of balls

Don't feed the trolls.

Wicks is a cyclist. Need I say more?

[Mrcheerful]

M Wicks wrote:
> The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
>

> Thanks,
> M Wicks

The one that I see trolling is M.Wicks. His posts are nothing to do with
the group he posts to, and certainly this particular one shows every
hallmark of the accepted qualities of a 'troll' post.
Urban dictionary:
troll :
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or
message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Spot on. Lets stop feeding him.

Cyclist trying to be clever. Never works.

[The Todal]

You must be Alan Partridge.

There ought to be a competition: to write the most passionate letter of
complaint to one's MP about the horrors of being taunted in usenet, and
then to publish the most amusing reply from an MP. Perhaps David Cameron
could be persuaded to say "too many tweets makes a twat". Or just "FOAD,
HTH".

[John Benn]

"M Wicks" <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52ea386b-e5ea-4bea...@n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

<another sermon snipped>

What a load of tosh

[Rob]

M Wicks wrote:
||... I will not rest until

|| someone posting 'Why not wear a helmet?' on uk.rec.cycling with faux
|| innocence, or going on about 'Road Tax' yet again, can expect to be
|| brought before magistrates and punished to the fullest extent of the
|| law. That seems entirely reasonable.

This is a wind-up right?
If you actually were that stupid then you couldn't possibly operate a
computer.

What's wrong with wearing a helmet, btw?

--
Rob

[Special Care]

People who share a particular interest can start an exclusive group
for members only on the usenet system and elsewhere.
The originator of the group can then exclude any member who causes
nuisance.

[Judith]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 15:19:00 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
>which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy
>two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls,
>who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up cyclists'
>and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be sad enough to
>spend their free time doing this is another discussion, but that is
>the situation at any rate. Group A trolls include 'Dave' and 'Judith'.

fuck off

[Peter Keller]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:19:00 -0700, M Wicks wrote:

> 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'.

They have not succeeded.



--
Never trust a man in a suit.

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:23:22 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> Wicks is a cyclist. Need I say more?

uk.rec.cycling is here to discuss bicycling. Need I say more?



--

[Judith]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:56:20 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk>
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:23:22 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>
>> Wicks is a cyclist. Need I say more?
>
>uk.rec.cycling is here to discuss bicycling. Need I say more?

When was the last time that *you* discussed cycling here by any stretch of the
imagination?

99% of your posts are nothing to do with cycling at all.

Have I said? : you are a fuckwit

[Judith]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:32:24 +0100, "Rob" <rsvptorob-...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

They may make any head injuries worse than if you did not wear one.

They are made from the same material as used in foam cups - so there is no way
that they can serve any useful purpose.

Also as they effectively increase the diameter of your skull there is more
chance of your head hitting another object if you are wearing one than if you
weren't. Many people have given examples of where they have come off their
bikes - slid along the road with their head literally centimetres away from the
road surface. If they had worn a helmet their head (together with the helmet)
would have been subjected to torsional forces which would have possibly broken
their neck.

Also - pedestrians and car drivers do not wear helmets - so why should
cyclists?

[Mrcheerful]

You forgot to mention risk compensation.
The wearer will feel safer and they will attempt to test the helmet by
getting into crashes and/or take more chances.

You also forgot that drivers will drive much closer when passing a cyclist
in a helmet.

As to the original question:
Spend as much as you can on a helmet that fits you well and wear it every
time you ride your bike. If it gets damaged in a crash or dropped hard then
cut it up and bin it, crash helmets are single use as far as damage goes.

[pensive hamster]

On Jul 10, 8:23 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR

> Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
> legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
> vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
> University

As a matter of interest, do you have a cite for your claim that "Many

people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of

transport ..."?

Is it perhaps based on research at Lancaster University? Taxpayer
funded research? Has it been peer reviewed? And how many people is
"many people" in this context?

And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"?
Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to
Usenet.

[BartC]

"pensive hamster" <pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e9ce17da-4f65-4511...@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 10, 8:23 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR
>> Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
>> legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
>> vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
>> University

> And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"?
> Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to
> Usenet.

Voice of Reason?

--
Bartc

[John Benn]

"Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pi0ov755csqb5ke12...@4ax.com...

Most of his posts mention fish

[pensive hamster]

On Jul 10, 3:58 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> "pensive hamster" <pensive_hams...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

But then its ungrammatical - it should be Cyclist's Voice of Reason.

Or maybe it is meant to be: Cyclists - [the] Voice of Reason.

Not that that makes much sense either.

[JNugent]

On 10/07/2012 16:25, pensive hamster wrote:

> "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:

>> "pensive hamster" <pensive_hams...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Jul 10, 8:23 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR [wrote]:

>>>> Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
>>>> legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
>>>> vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
>>>> University

>>> And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"?
>>> Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to
>>> Usenet.

>> Voice of Reason?

> But then its ungrammatical - it should be Cyclist's Voice of Reason.

That should have been "it's".

The version without the apostrophe is the possessive form. The contraction of
"it is" (your sense above) requires an apostrophe.

HTH.

On the meaning of "VOR":

If it were meant to convey that the writer is the Voice of Reason for just
one cyclist, what you say ("it should be Cyclist's Voice of Reason") would be
true.

If, however, as seems more likely, the gentleman concerned wishes to be seen
as the Voice of Reason for cyclists in general, then it would correctly be
"Cyclists' Voice of Reason".

I wouldn't have mentioned any of this but for your flaming another poster's
grammar. Unless yours is perfect, it's better not to. As an aside, some would
say that you need to do some work on the use of apostrophes - and on
reflection, you'd probably agree (I hope).

> Or maybe it is meant to be: Cyclists - [the] Voice of Reason.
> Not that that makes much sense either.

[I have just re-checked this post for typos and spelling before clicking
"send". But we all know what tends to happen with these sub-threads.]

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 10/07/2012 15:21, pensive hamster wrote:
> On Jul 10, 8:23 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR
>> Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
>> legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
>> vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
>> University
>
> As a matter of interest, do you have a cite for your claim that "Many
> people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
> transport ..."?

Yes thank you.

>
> Is it perhaps based on research at Lancaster University? Taxpayer
> funded research? Has it been peer reviewed? And how many people is
> "many people" in this context?

GIYF

>
> And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"?
> Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to
> Usenet.
>
>

Voice of Reason.



--

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 10/07/2012 16:25, pensive hamster wrote:

You are confusing me with someone who cares.


--

[M Wicks]

On Jul 10, 5:55 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 10/07/2012 16:25, pensive hamster wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 3:58 pm, "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
> >> "pensive hamster" <pensive_hams...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:e9ce17da-4f65-4511...@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On Jul 10, 8:23 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR
> >>>> Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
> >>>> legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
> >>>> vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
> >>>> University
> >>> And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"?
> >>> Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to
> >>> Usenet.
>
> >> Voice of Reason?
>
> > But then its ungrammatical - it should be Cyclist's Voice of Reason.
>
> > Or maybe it is meant to be: Cyclists - [the] Voice of Reason.
>
> > Not that that makes much sense either.
>
> You are confusing me with someone who cares.

Yay! 'Dave' deliberately makes yet another usenet enemy. The
counsellor will be fascinated with this compulsion of yours.

[JNugent]

On 10/07/2012 18:29, M Wicks wrote:

> Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>> pensive hamster wrote:
>>> "BartC" <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:

>>>> "pensive hamster" <pensive_hams...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Dave - Cyclists VOR

>>>>>> Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
>>>>>> legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
>>>>>> vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
>>>>>> University

>>>>> And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"?
>>>>> Google is no help, it just refers back to your various posts to
>>>>> Usenet.

>>>> Voice of Reason?

>>> But then its ungrammatical - it should be Cyclist's Voice of Reason.
>>> Or maybe it is meant to be: Cyclists - [the] Voice of Reason.
>>> Not that that makes much sense either.

>> You are confusing me with someone who cares.

> Yay! 'Dave' deliberately makes yet another usenet enemy. The
> counsellor will be fascinated with this compulsion of yours.

If you had read the exchange more carefully, you would have spotted the
(rather obvious) fact that PH's post was a (mild) attack on "Dave". It
follows that "Dave" could not make an enemy of someone who was already
inimical to him. That's if "enemy" and its derivatives are the correct terms.
Some will differ on that.

Not, of course, that there's anything necessarily wrong with posting attacks,
as I'm sure that both you and "Dave" would readily agree.

[Mr Pounder]

"M Wicks" <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:52ea386b-e5ea-4bea...@n5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
> which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy
> two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls,
> who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up cyclists'
> and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be sad enough to
> spend their free time doing this is another discussion, but that is
> the situation at any rate. Group A trolls include 'Dave' and 'Judith'.
>

> my example. I implore you to do the same. I will not rest until

> someone posting 'Why not wear a helmet?' on uk.rec.cycling with faux
> innocence, or going on about 'Road Tax' yet again, can expect to be
> brought before magistrates and punished to the fullest extent of the

> law. That seems entirely reasonable. You are not exempt from the
> requirement to conduct yourself as a decent, law-abiding human being
> just because you are behind a keyboard. We generally believe that
> people who go round trying to make everyone else miserable deserve
> their comeuppance, and so 'Dave' richly deserves his, but 'JNugent'
> does as well. Trolling, whether 'subtle' or blatant, needs to be made
> illegal. And after reading my post, I know that at least some of you
> will agree.
>
> Thanks,
> M Wicks

Who is really interested in a obscure newsgroup that is dying?
I know one man who might be.
How goes it these days Simon?

[Cassandra]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 15:19:00 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks
<mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
>which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy
>two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls,
>who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up cyclists'
>and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be sad enough to
>spend their free time doing this is another discussion, but that is
>the situation at any rate. Group A trolls include 'Dave' and 'Judith'.
>

While trolling is fun, the trolls of uk.rec.cycling have made the
group unusable for people with a normal interest in cycling. They have
therefore crossed the line from trolls to anti-social cunts.

[Deux]

On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:19:00 -0700, M Wicks wrote:

> It occurs to me that these 'harassment' accusations are not the way to
> do it, firstly because it is difficult to make them stick, and secondly
> because it does not seem entirely honest to accuse someone of
> 'harassment' of individuals when really you're trying to punish them for
> trolling newsgroups. So it seems to me that the best solution, at least
> for uk.rec.cycling, is simply to make trolling illegal.

If only there was some way to have a group just like this one but
moderated.

[Steve Firth]

M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
> which has gone on for several years.

Yes, the names of the trolls include Doug "Don't Call Me Bollen" Bollen,
SquashedFlea, Guy "s/u/a/" Chapman, Phil W (anchor) Lee, Ian "Whacko"
Jackson and Simon "Slimeon" Mason. Now it seems that you want to add
your name to the list.

What is it about getting on a cycle that reduces the users IQ to a
single numeral?

[Steve Firth]

pensive hamster <pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean? "Cyclists Velocipede On Road"?

Clearly it is Cyclists - Vermin On Road.

[John Benn]

"Deux" <de...@none.none> wrote in message
news:Jt-dnSfOg9HM6GHS...@supernews.com...

What a brilliant idea! Oh, hang on .....

[Janitor of Lunacy]

"Cassandra" <cassandr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ffc6eab...@news.virginmedia.com...

So start a new, moderated, newsgroup.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

:-) Nice!


--

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

I take that as a compliment.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

They did - and it was terminally boring.

[pensive hamster]

Ah, but I wasn't flaming another poster's grammar. I was expressing
mild skepticism about an earlier poster's suggestion that VOR might
mean 'Voice of Reason', on the basis that 'Cyclists Voice of Reason'
seemed to be ungrammatical, because it lacked punctuation. My
underlying assumption was that it would have been correctly
punctuated, had it meant 'Voice of Reason', and the fact that it
wasn't punctated, indicated that it probably didn't mean 'Voice of
Reason'.

I did consider the possibility of 'Cyclists' Voice of Reason', as you
discuss, but unlike you, judged it unlikely that the gentleman
concerned wished to be seen as the Voice of Reason for cyclists in
general. It seemed to me more likely that he saw himself as
representing the interests of a sub-genre, the reluctant cyclist.
Cyclists who were on the verge of realising the foolishness of
cycling, and who might therefore be more open and sympathetic to the
message of Dave.

Though his message is a little ambiguous. When he writes: 'Many people
barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport ...',
is he expressing the hope that, in time, many people will come to more
fully appreciate the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport? Or
not?

And why does he mention Lancaster University? Does he think that will
lend greater weight to his opinions (whatever they are) on cycling?
The more I think about it, the more questions there seem to be.
Perhaps he is pussy-whipped, and his wife forces him to cycle to
Lancaster University every day, while she takes the kids to school in
the car. Is Dave's sig a disguised plea for help? Who knows. There
does seem to be an untold story here.

(p.s. I promise to work on my apostrophes'.)

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 10/07/2012 20:48, pensive hamster wrote:
> On Jul 10, 4:50 pm, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>
> Ah, but I wasn't flaming another poster's grammar. I was expressing
> mild skepticism about an earlier poster's suggestion that VOR might
> mean 'Voice of Reason', on the basis that 'Cyclists Voice of Reason'
> seemed to be ungrammatical, because it lacked punctuation. My
> underlying assumption was that it would have been correctly
> punctuated, had it meant 'Voice of Reason', and the fact that it
> wasn't punctated, indicated that it probably didn't mean 'Voice of
> Reason'.

Sorry, I'm not perfect at "punctation".

>
> I did consider the possibility of 'Cyclists' Voice of Reason', as you
> discuss, but unlike you, judged it unlikely that the gentleman
> concerned wished to be seen as the Voice of Reason for cyclists in
> general.

Its a mission. If I can rid the world of cyclists my living will not
have been in vain.

> It seemed to me more likely that he saw himself as
> representing the interests of a sub-genre, the reluctant cyclist.
> Cyclists who were on the verge of realising the foolishness of
> cycling, and who might therefore be more open and sympathetic to the
> message of Dave.

That of course is part of the mission. Not just ridding the world of
cyclists, but preventing new generations.

>
> Though his message is a little ambiguous.

Its not ambiguous at all. The majority of the public regard cyclists as
complete bell ends.

> When he writes: 'Many people
> barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport ...',
> is he expressing the hope that, in time, many people will come to more
> fully appreciate the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport? Or
> not?

No I'm repeating the findings of a scientific study. Report on the study
here;http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jun/03/britons-unmoved-cycling-campaigns

>
> And why does he mention Lancaster University? Does he think that will
> lend greater weight to his opinions (whatever they are) on cycling?

Doh! Thats where the scientific study was based.

> The more I think about it, the more questions there seem to be.

Par for the course with a thicko cyclist.

> Perhaps he is pussy-whipped, and his wife forces him to cycle to
> Lancaster University every day, while she takes the kids to school in
> the car. Is Dave's sig a disguised plea for help? Who knows. There
> does seem to be an untold story here.

Curses, rumbled. Yes, my wife makes me cycle from Kent to Lancaster
every day whilst she take our 27 & 30 year old daughters to school. Eat
your heart out Sherlock!

>
> (p.s. I promise to work on my apostrophes'.)

Working on your thinking might be a better bet.


--

[®i©ardo]

LOL! Pedal away, damn you!

;-)

--
Moving things in still pictures

[®i©ardo]

On 10/07/2012 19:32, Steve Firth wrote:

It's the constant banging of their nuts on the cross bar whilst having
their helmet straps too tight. It causes a lot of pressure on their
brains, which many of them keep between their legs.

[Ian Smith]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, pensive hamster <pensive...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Though his message is a little ambiguous. When he writes: 'Many
> people barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of
> transport ...', is he expressing the hope that, in time, many
> people will come to more fully appreciate the bicycle as a
> legitimate mode of transport?

I think so, yes. That's clearly the original context of the quote
(from elsewhere in the same work: "It is widely recognised that an
increase in walking and cycling for short journeys in urban areas
could significantly reduce traffic congestion, improve the quality of
the urban environment, promote improved personal health, and
contribute to a reduction in carbon emissions.") and since he quotes
it so frequently, he is evidently seeking to more widely disseminate
the message - it can surely only be quoted with a feeling of approval
/ agreement with the sentiments of the research findings.

If he disagreed with the conclusions of the research, I'm sure he
wouldn't put so much effort into promulgating the message.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[JNugent]

On 10/07/2012 20:48, pensive hamster wrote:

Really?

What does "But then its ungrammatical" mean (ignoring the missing apostrophe)?

> I was expressing
> mild skepticism about an earlier poster's suggestion that VOR might
> mean 'Voice of Reason', on the basis that 'Cyclists Voice of Reason'
> seemed to be ungrammatical, because it lacked punctuation. My
> underlying assumption was that it would have been correctly
> punctuated, had it meant 'Voice of Reason', and the fact that it
> wasn't punctated, indicated that it probably didn't mean 'Voice of
> Reason'.

> I did consider the possibility of 'Cyclists' Voice of Reason', as you
> discuss, but unlike you, judged it unlikely that the gentleman
> concerned wished to be seen as the Voice of Reason for cyclists in
> general. It seemed to me more likely that he saw himself as
> representing the interests of a sub-genre, the reluctant cyclist.
> Cyclists who were on the verge of realising the foolishness of
> cycling, and who might therefore be more open and sympathetic to the
> message of Dave.

> Though his message is a little ambiguous. When he writes: 'Many people
> barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport ...',
> is he expressing the hope that, in time, many people will come to more
> fully appreciate the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport? Or
> not?

No. As is now fairly well-known, he is quoting from a learned paper published
at Lancaster University.

> And why does he mention Lancaster University?

That's because (see above) a paper on the topic of general population views
of cycling and cyclists was published by a researcher (or fellow) of that
august institution.

> Does he think that will
> lend greater weight to his opinions (whatever they are) on cycling?

As you have no doubt already realised, that is a silly question to ask of me.

You'll have to ask him.

> The more I think about it, the more questions there seem to be.
> Perhaps he is pussy-whipped, and his wife forces him to cycle to
> Lancaster University every day, while she takes the kids to school in
> the car. Is Dave's sig a disguised plea for help? Who knows. There
> does seem to be an untold story here.

> (p.s. I promise to work on my apostrophes'.)

Don't trouble yourself on my account.

[Steve Firth]

Cassandra <cassandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> While trolling is fun, the trolls of uk.rec.cycling have made the
> group unusable for people with a normal interest in cycling.

Yes, well, I'd say kick out the worthless cunts who make cycling a
misery, see previous shortlist for the names of the trolls. Let me
see... Crapman and his cohorts troll the driving groups. They attract
the attention of bigger and nastier trolls than themselves.

They piss and moan about it.

That favourite word of Bollen's is coming to mind again. Hypocrites.

BTw, is there such a thing as "a normal interest in cycling"? All the
people who bang on about cycling seem to be anything but normal or
interesting.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Message for Ian Smith from The Wizard of Oz; "Your brain is now ready"


--

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 21:20:37 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> Its a mission. If I can rid the world of cyclists my living will not
> have been in vain.

Your mission will fail.



--
Never trust a man in a suit.

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 17:54:06 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> And what does "Cyclists VOR" mean?

Vorephiliac.

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:24:52 +0100, Judith wrote:

> you are a fuckwit

As that the best you can do you vorephilic twat? Why not the greater
honour of grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john you clouted
boggish foot-licking tand dankish clack-dish plonker?

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:20:35 +0100, John Benn wrote:

> "Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pi0ov755csqb5ke12...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:56:20 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
>> <muzh...@centrum.sk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:23:22 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wicks is a cyclist. Need I say more?
>>>
>>>uk.rec.cycling is here to discuss bicycling. Need I say more?
>>
>>
>>
>> When was the last time that *you* discussed cycling here by any stretch
>> of the
>> imagination?
>>
>> 99% of your posts are nothing to do with cycling at all.
>>
>> Have I said? : you are a fuckwit
>
> Most of his posts mention fish

Yum yum.

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:32:09 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> On 10/07/2012 19:43, Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
>> "Cassandra" <cassandr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ffc6eab...@news.virginmedia.com...
>>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 15:19:00 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks
>>> <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
>>>> which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy
>>>> two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls,
>>>> who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up
>>>> cyclists' and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be sad
>>>> enough to spend their free time doing this is another discussion, but
>>>> that is the situation at any rate. Group A trolls include 'Dave' and
>>>> 'Judith'.
>>>>
>>> While trolling is fun, the trolls of uk.rec.cycling have made the
>>> group unusable for people with a normal interest in cycling. They have
>>> therefore crossed the line from trolls to anti-social cunts.
>>
>> So start a new, moderated, newsgroup.
>>
>>
> They did - and it was terminally boring.

No it isn't

[Andy Leighton]

Removed uk.legal - doesn't seem to be appropriate for there.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:32:12 +0100, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> M Wicks <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
>> which has gone on for several years.
>
> Yes, the names of the trolls include Doug "Don't Call Me Bollen" Bollen,
> SquashedFlea, Guy "s/u/a/" Chapman, Phil W (anchor) Lee, Ian "Whacko"
> Jackson and Simon "Slimeon" Mason. Now it seems that you want to add
> your name to the list.

Can you tell me the last time some of those have posted to
uk.rec.cycling and the number of posts over the last 30 days?

Whatever you think of their previous records, or if you think they were
initiating the problem, or exacerbating it by responding unwisely, or
just people you don't like, they do not seem to be causing any kerfuffle
at the moment. Unlike some others who do not seem to have an interest in
the focus of the group.


--
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_

[Judith]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:46:21 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk>

wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:20:35 +0100, John Benn wrote:
>
>> "Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:pi0ov755csqb5ke12...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:56:20 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
>>> <muzh...@centrum.sk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:23:22 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wicks is a cyclist. Need I say more?
>>>>
>>>>uk.rec.cycling is here to discuss bicycling. Need I say more?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When was the last time that *you* discussed cycling here by any stretch
>>> of the
>>> imagination?
>>>
>>> 99% of your posts are nothing to do with cycling at all.
>>>
>>> Have I said? : you are a fuckwit
>>
>> Most of his posts mention fish
>
>Yum yum.

Silly old sod

--
You are Peter Keller MB ChB FANZCA - a silly old sod in his late sixties in New Zealand, and ICMFP
A credit to the Medical Profession - ffs

[Judith]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller <muzh...@centrum.sk>
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:24:52 +0100, Judith wrote:
>
>> you are a fuckwit
>
>As that the best you can do you vorephilic twat? Why not the greater
>honour of grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john you clouted
>boggish foot-licking tand dankish clack-dish plonker?

[pensive hamster]

On Jul 11, 12:22 am, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
[...]

> >> I wouldn't have mentioned any of this but for your flaming another poster's
> >> grammar.
> > Ah, but I wasn't flaming another poster's grammar.
>
> Really?
>
> What does "But then its ungrammatical" mean (ignoring the missing apostrophe)?
>

I reckon the meaning is clear enough, but consider the context as
well. I first said "But then its ungrammatical" in my July 10
response to "BartC", who had suggested that "Cyclists VOR" might mean
"Cyclists Voice of Reason".

At the time, I saw no reason to believe that "Dave - Cyclists VOR"
might be ungrammatical in his utterances, so I adduced the
ungrammatical nature of BartC's suggested translation "Cyclists Voice
of Reason" as a reason to be skeptical of that translation. Oh how
wrong I was!

So far from flaming Dave's grammar, I was in fact defending him
against what I saw as BartC's unwarranted imputation that he might be
prone to ungrammatical utterances. I would like now to apologise most
profusely to BartC for my failure to appreciate his sagacity and
insight in the matter.

I did try and explain that in the first two sentences quoted below.
Obviously not very effectively.

>
> > I was expressing
> > mild skepticism about an earlier poster's suggestion that VOR might
> > mean 'Voice of Reason', on the basis that 'Cyclists Voice of Reason'
> > seemed to be ungrammatical, because it lacked punctuation. My
> > underlying assumption was that it would have been correctly
> > punctuated, had it meant 'Voice of Reason', and the fact that it
> > wasn't punctated, indicated that it probably didn't mean 'Voice of
> > Reason'.
> > I did consider the possibility of  'Cyclists' Voice of Reason', as you
> > discuss, but unlike you, judged it unlikely that the gentleman
> > concerned wished to be seen as the Voice of Reason for cyclists in
> > general. It seemed to me more likely that he saw himself as
> > representing the interests of a sub-genre, the reluctant cyclist.
> > Cyclists who were on the verge of realising the foolishness of
> > cycling, and who might therefore be more open and sympathetic to the
> > message of Dave.
> > Though his message is a little ambiguous. When he writes: 'Many people
> > barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport ...',
> > is he expressing the hope that, in time, many people will come to more
> > fully  appreciate the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport? Or
> > not?
>
> No.

Ian Smith seems to disagree. Posting earlier, he quoted from
Lancaster University's learned paper:

"It is widely recognised that an increase in walking and cycling for
short journeys in urban areas could significantly reduce traffic
congestion, improve the quality of the urban environment, promote
improved personal health, and contribute to a reduction in carbon
emissions."

http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/society_and_environment/walking_and_cycling.php

However, "Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in this thread on Jul 10, at 9:20
pm:

"Its a mission. If I can rid the world of cyclists my living will not
have been in vain."

So "Dave - Cyclists VOR" seems to be a bit off-message in relation to
Lancaster University's paper.

Which leads me to wonder if "Dave - Cyclists VOR" is the same as "Dave
Horton - Lancaster University", or a different Dave.

And I must say it is looking unlikely that "Dave - Cyclists VOR" will
succeed in his mission of ridding the world of cyclists - there must
be half-a-billion in China alone - so, sadly it seems that his life
will most likely prove, by his own estimation, to have been in vain.

I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for Dave now.

> As is now fairly well-known, he is quoting from a learned paper published
> at Lancaster University.
>

Indeed, as I now gather. I am posting and reading from uk.legal, so
you will forgive me, if I am not entirely au fait with the denizens of
uk.rec.cycling and the learned papers they are wont to discuss.

> > And why does he mention Lancaster University?
>
> That's because (see above) a paper on the topic of general population views
> of cycling and cyclists was published by a researcher (or fellow) of that
> august institution.
>
> > Does he think that will
> > lend greater weight to his opinions (whatever they are) on cycling?
>
> As you have no doubt already realised, that is a silly question to ask of me.
>
> You'll have to ask him.
>

It was more of a rhetorical question.
[...]

[F Murtz]

M Wicks wrote:
> The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem

> which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy
> two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls,
> who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up cyclists'
> and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be sad enough to
> spend their free time doing this is another discussion, but that is
> the situation at any rate. Group A trolls include 'Dave' and 'Judith'.
>

> Group B consists of the slightly more 'subtle' trolls, who pretend to
> be on the newsgroup for legitimate and respectable reasons, but in the
> end are just motivated by exactly the same anti-cycling sentiment as
> Group A. This group includes 'JNugent', 'NM' and of course the fake
> cyclist 'John Benn'. In many ways I find this group more frustrating,
> as they so persistently deny that they are present for anything but
> the most noble of reasons, despite making it obvious what they really
> think by always, no matter what, siding against the cyclist(s) in any
> given scenario.
>
> Anyway, there is further reading elsewhere on the ongoing and very
> specific problems that uk.rec.cycling has unfortunately experienced.
> We are trying to do something about it. Various legal remedies are on
> the table. But these rely on showing that some kind of 'harassment' of
> individual cyclists has occurred, which is tricky. And it is
> understood by all concerned that the 'harassment' accusations are just
> the method by which we are having to bring these trolls to justice,
> and that the real reason why they are being taken to court is to
> punish them for trolling and destroying a valuable and once pleasant
> newsgroup with their constant, vicious jibes and their worthless and
> incorrect opinions, all of which are carefully calculated to stoke the
> fire and cause maximum friction.

>
> It occurs to me that these 'harassment' accusations are not the way to
> do it, firstly because it is difficult to make them stick, and
> secondly because it does not seem entirely honest to accuse someone of
> 'harassment' of individuals when really you're trying to punish them
> for trolling newsgroups. So it seems to me that the best solution, at
> least for uk.rec.cycling, is simply to make trolling illegal.
>

> 'What about free speech?', I hear you ask. Well, it is generally
> accepted that sometimes we need to make exceptions to allowing free
> speech where it is in the public interest, e.g. with hate speech. So
> why not make another exception with trolling? How exactly is it in the
> public interest to allow the likes of 'Dave' and 'Judith' to
> systematically and irrevocably destroy valuable Internet resources?
> Isn't it much more in the public interest to stop them? Your favourite
> newsgroup or forum could be next if we do not stop these worthless
> individuals from spreading their hate. Trolling is on the increase as
> more and more idiots spend more and more time online, and so society
> needs to act robustly and quickly in order to show that it is not
> going to tolerate such extremely antisocial behaviour.
>
> I will be writing to my MP about this subject, using uk.rec.cycling as
> my example. I implore you to do the same. I will not rest until
> someone posting 'Why not wear a helmet?' on uk.rec.cycling with faux
> innocence, or going on about 'Road Tax' yet again, can expect to be
> brought before magistrates and punished to the fullest extent of the
> law. That seems entirely reasonable. You are not exempt from the
> requirement to conduct yourself as a decent, law-abiding human being
> just because you are behind a keyboard. We generally believe that
> people who go round trying to make everyone else miserable deserve
> their comeuppance, and so 'Dave' richly deserves his, but 'JNugent'
> does as well. Trolling, whether 'subtle' or blatant, needs to be made
> illegal. And after reading my post, I know that at least some of you
> will agree.
>
> Thanks,
> M Wicks


So you want a cycling newsgroup that only discusses what you want with
no dissenting voices, your group would be boring.

[Mrcheerful]

and the proof is at uk.rec.cycling.moderated

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 11/07/2012 13:15, pensive hamster wrote:
> On Jul 11, 12:22 am, JNugent <jennings...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> I wouldn't have mentioned any of this but for your flaming another poster's
>>>> grammar.
>>> Ah, but I wasn't flaming another poster's grammar.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> What does "But then its ungrammatical" mean (ignoring the missing apostrophe)?
>>
>
> I reckon the meaning is clear enough

Thank fuck for that. We can ignore all this bollox.

>
> Ian Smith seems to disagree. Posting earlier, he quoted from
> Lancaster University's learned paper:

Smith is a well know bell end.

>
> "It is widely recognised that an increase in walking and cycling for
> short journeys in urban areas could significantly reduce traffic
> congestion, improve the quality of the urban environment, promote
> improved personal health, and contribute to a reduction in carbon
> emissions."
> http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/society_and_environment/walking_and_cycling.php

It may be widely recognised that cycling "could" achieve those aims -
trouble is nobody wants to cycle. That's what the research found.

>
> However, "Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in this thread on Jul 10, at 9:20
> pm:
>
> "Its a mission. If I can rid the world of cyclists my living will not
> have been in vain."
>
> So "Dave - Cyclists VOR" seems to be a bit off-message in relation to
> Lancaster University's paper.
>
> Which leads me to wonder if "Dave - Cyclists VOR" is the same as "Dave
> Horton - Lancaster University", or a different Dave.

Dave Horton is himself a rabid cyclist. To his credit, when he found
the truth, although he didn't like it, he published it.

>
> And I must say it is looking unlikely that "Dave - Cyclists VOR" will
> succeed in his mission of ridding the world of cyclists - there must
> be half-a-billion in China alone - so, sadly it seems that his life
> will most likely prove, by his own estimation, to have been in vain.

I'm not brown bread yet. Come the revolution citizen...

>
> I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for Dave now.
>
>> As is now fairly well-known, he is quoting from a learned paper published
>> at Lancaster University.
>>
>
> Indeed, as I now gather. I am posting and reading from uk.legal, so
> you will forgive me, if I am not entirely au fait with the denizens of
> uk.rec.cycling and the learned papers they are wont to discuss.

Not au fait with much by the look of it.

>
>
>>> And why does he mention Lancaster University?
>>
>> That's because (see above) a paper on the topic of general population views
>> of cycling and cyclists was published by a researcher (or fellow) of that
>> august institution.
>>
>>> Does he think that will
>>> lend greater weight to his opinions (whatever they are) on cycling?
>>
>> As you have no doubt already realised, that is a silly question to ask of me.
>>
>> You'll have to ask him.
>>
>
> It was more of a rhetorical question.
> [...]
>

--

Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a

vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

[pensive hamster]

On Jul 11, 7:55 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

[big snip]

And you hope not to be confused with someone who cares?

[JNugent]

On 11/07/2012 14:10, F Murtz wrote:

> M Wicks wrote:

>> The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem

>> which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to....

[Many, many, many lines snipped]

>> Thanks,
>> M Wicks

> So you want a cycling newsgroup that only discusses what you want with no
> dissenting voices, your group would be boring.

One thing about ukrc (as it is now) is that you could never call it boring.

[John Benn]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:a663b8...@mid.individual.net...

I prefer to use the word "tedious" to describe the people in that group.

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:35:53 +0100, Judith wrote:

> a silly old sod

Oh dear you are getting so saggy and limp. I want much better
accolades! Such as that of having bad breath.



--
Life is a venereal disease with 100% mortality.

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 11:35:36 +0100, Judith wrote:

> Silly old sod

What about degenerate, noxious and depraved? And proud of it.
I have no desire to improve my standing with the hypocritical, greedy,
violent, malevolent, vengeful, cowardly, deadly, mendacious,
meretricious, loathsome, despicable, belligerent, opportunistic,
barratrous, contemptible, criminal, fascistic, bigoted, racist, sexist,
avaricious, tasteless, idiotic, brain-damaged, imbecilic, insane,
arrogant, deceitful, demented, lame, and self-righteous harridan
called ....

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Silly old sod just sums you up so perfectly......

[pensive hamster]

On Jul 13, 8:14 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
> legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
> vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
> University

VOR is a national advocacy organization, speaking out for people with
intellectual disabilities and mental retardation.
http://www.vor.net/

[NM]

On Jul 13, 10:47 am, pensive hamster <pensive_hams...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

VOR is a civil aviation beacon, system is in use worldwide.

[pensive hamster]

No it isn't, its the Volvo Ocean Race.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

"people with intellectual disabilities and mental retardation"?

We call them cyclists....



--

[pensive hamster]

On Jul 13, 6:43 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> > VOR is a national advocacy organization, speaking out for people with
> > intellectual disabilities and mental retardation.
> >http://www.vor.net/
>
> "people with intellectual disabilities and mental retardation"?
>
> We call them cyclists....
>

http://www.theargonauts.com/images/quotes/albert-einstein-bicycle-quote.jpg

[BartC]

"Dave - Cyclists VOR" <davi...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a7ZLr.789609$kM1.1...@fx18.am4...

> On 13/07/2012 10:47, pensive hamster wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 8:14 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
>>> legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
>>> vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
>>> University
>>
>> VOR is a national advocacy organization, speaking out for people with
>> intellectual disabilities and mental retardation.
>> http://www.vor.net/
>>
>
> "people with intellectual disabilities and mental retardation"?
>
> We call them cyclists....

A lot of them seem to go to Cambridge University.

--
bartc

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 08:14:19 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> Silly old sod

And you have a problem with that?
Sorry that is your problem not mine.

[Peter Keller]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 18:43:35 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> On 13/07/2012 10:47, pensive hamster wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 8:14 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
>>> legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
>>> vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
>>> University
>>
>> VOR is a national advocacy organization, speaking out for people with
>> intellectual disabilities and mental retardation. http://www.vor.net/
>>
>>
> "people with intellectual disabilities and mental retardation"?
>
> We call them cyclists....

It is so wonderful to be complimented this way by the imbecilic dave ....

Incidentally, "VOR stands for Voracious Organisation for Vorephiliacs.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

The old 'picture of Einstein on a bike' chestnut. Cyclists love that one.

Which proves fuck all as you well know.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

But the majority don't fuckwit.


--

[pensive hamster]

On Jul 14, 9:51 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>

> >> "people with intellectual disabilities and mental retardation"?
>
> >> We call them cyclists....
>

> >http://www.theargonauts.com/images/quotes/albert-einstein-bicycle-quo...

>
> The old 'picture of Einstein on a bike' chestnut.  Cyclists love that one.
>

Ah, so you were able to recognise the person in the photo. That's an
encouraging sign. It shows you still have some brain function.

> Which proves fuck all as you well know.

Quite so.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 14/07/2012 15:28, pensive hamster wrote:
> On Jul 14, 9:51 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>>>> "people with intellectual disabilities and mental retardation"?
>>
>>>> We call them cyclists....
>>
>>> http://www.theargonauts.com/images/quotes/albert-einstein-bicycle-quo...
>>
>> The old 'picture of Einstein on a bike' chestnut. Cyclists love that one.
>>
>
> Ah, so you were able to recognise the person in the photo.

I didn't need to look. a) fuckwit cyclists try this old bollox every
time - because they are thick and b) the link "albert-einstein-bicycle"
gave me a clue.....

> That's an
>> encouraging sign. It shows you still have some brain function.

Which is clearly an improvement on you, shit for brains.

>
>> Which proves fuck all as you well know.
>
> Quite so.
>

Then why waste your fucking time posting it?

[M Wicks]

On Jul 14, 5:46 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>
> Then why waste your f***ing time posting it?

Ahem! Slipped up again there didn't we?

I know you're trying hard and I don't want to discourage you, but I
think a swear box may really help you with your urges. Every time you
fall off the wagon and find that you've accidentally sworn, put a
pound in. At the end of each week you'll either be able to
congratulate yourself on a job well done (if the box is empty), or
you'll have money to give to the cycling charity of your choice.

And never forget: you can do it!

[NM]

Fuck off with you attempts to make everyone into a cretin like you.

[M Wicks]

> F*** off with you attempts to make everyone into a cretin like you.

Not sure that sentence makes
sense???????????????????????????????????????

[NM]

Are you sure of anything? After all you believe in sky faries so you
judgment must be questionable.

Please don't edit my posts (yet again) I wrote 'fuck' not 'f***' ,
you have no rights of censorship.

[thirty-six]

On Jul 10, 9:20 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:

> Its a mission.  If I can rid the world of cyclists my living will not
> have been in vain.

but your profession as an odd job man is such a worthwhile one.

>
> That of course is part of the mission.  Not just ridding the world of
> cyclists, but preventing new generations.

oh dear, had a bad personal experience?

> Its not ambiguous at all.  The majority of the public regard cyclists as
> complete bell ends.

your opinions are a reflection of your fears about yourself.

> No I'm repeating the findings of a scientific study. Report on the study
> here;http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jun/03/britons-unmoved-cy...

really?

> Doh!  Thats where the scientific study was based.

and that is important to you because?

[Peter Keller]

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:20:35 +0100, John Benn wrote:

> "Judith" <jmsmi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pi0ov755csqb5ke12...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:56:20 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
>> <muzh...@centrum.sk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:23:22 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wicks is a cyclist. Need I say more?
>>>
>>>uk.rec.cycling is here to discuss bicycling. Need I say more?
>>
>>
>>
>> When was the last time that *you* discussed cycling here by any stretch
>> of the imagination?
>>
>> 99% of your posts are nothing to do with cycling at all.
>>
>> Have I said? : you are a fuckwit
>
> Most of his posts mention fish

You would not know. I am in your killfile.

[John Benn]

"NM" <nik.m...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:423b8f7f-d423-4752...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

===============================

As M Wicks claims to be a Christian, he will shortly be apologising for
doing that.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Don't feed the troll.

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 14/07/2012 23:22, thirty-six wrote:
> On Jul 10, 9:20 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Its a mission. If I can rid the world of cyclists my living will not
>> have been in vain.
>
> but your profession as an odd job man is such a worthwhile one.

What has that to do with anything?

>
>>
>> That of course is part of the mission. Not just ridding the world of
>> cyclists, but preventing new generations.
>
> oh dear, had a bad personal experience?

No, I just share the opinion of the majority of drivers.

>
>> Its not ambiguous at all. The majority of the public regard cyclists as
>> complete bell ends.
>
> your opinions are a reflection of your fears about yourself.

Nope, they are the opinions of the majority, backed by research. Most
people think cyclists are bell ends.

>
>> No I'm repeating the findings of a scientific study. Report on the study
>> here;http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/jun/03/britons-unmoved-cy...
>
> really?

Yes. I know there are some long words in there, but persist.

>
>> Doh! Thats where the scientific study was based.
>
> and that is important to you because?
>

Where isn't important to me at all.

[thirty-six]

On Jul 15, 9:33 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>

wrote:
> On 14/07/2012 23:22, thirty-six wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 9:20 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Its a mission.  If I can rid the world of cyclists my living will not
> >> have been in vain.
>
> > but your profession as an odd job man is such a worthwhile one.
>
> What has that to do with anything?
>
>
>
> >> That of course is part of the mission.  Not just ridding the world of
> >> cyclists, but preventing new generations.
>
> > oh dear, had a bad personal experience?
>
> No, I just share the opinion of the majority of drivers.
>
>
>
> >> Its not ambiguous at all.  The majority of the public regard cyclists as
> >> complete bell ends.
>
> > your opinions are a reflection of your fears about yourself.
>
> Nope, they are the opinions of the majority, backed by research.  Most
> people think cyclists are bell ends.

How fantastic for you. Who do you think is behind the perversion
which encouraged such a belief?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 15/07/2012 10:58, thirty-six wrote:
> On Jul 15, 9:33 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> On 14/07/2012 23:22, thirty-six wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 10, 9:20 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Its a mission. If I can rid the world of cyclists my living will not
>>>> have been in vain.
>>
>>> but your profession as an odd job man is such a worthwhile one.
>>
>> What has that to do with anything?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> That of course is part of the mission. Not just ridding the world of
>>>> cyclists, but preventing new generations.
>>
>>> oh dear, had a bad personal experience?
>>
>> No, I just share the opinion of the majority of drivers.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Its not ambiguous at all. The majority of the public regard cyclists as
>>>> complete bell ends.
>>
>>> your opinions are a reflection of your fears about yourself.
>>
>> Nope, they are the opinions of the majority, backed by research. Most
>> people think cyclists are bell ends.
>
> How fantastic for you. Who do you think is behind the perversion
> which encouraged such a belief?

Sorry if you don't like the truth, but thats how it is.

[thirty-six]

On Jul 15, 11:29 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>

wrote:
> On 15/07/2012 10:58, thirty-six wrote:
> > On Jul 15, 9:33 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Nope, they are the opinions of the majority, backed by research.  Most
> >> people think cyclists are bell ends.
>
> > How fantastic for you.  Who do you think is behind the perversion
> > which encouraged such a belief?
>
> Sorry if you don't like the truth, but thats how it is.
>

I believe you are misguided. I wonder whether Angela Lee knowingly
causes our children to look like bell-ends or do you think she is a
puppet?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

Cyclists look like bell ends with or without helmets (no pun intended).

It's just that you look a bigger bell end in a helmet.

One of many reasons why they should be compulsory.

[M Wicks]

On Jul 15, 9:29 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>

wrote:
> On 14/07/2012 21:58, NM wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 14, 9:37 pm, M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 14, 9:19 pm, NM <nik.mor...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 14, 7:02 pm, M Wicks <mwicks1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Jul 14, 5:46 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Then why waste your f***ing time posting it?
>
> >>>> Ahem! Slipped up again there didn't we?
>
> >>>> I know you're trying hard and I don't want to discourage you, but I
> >>>> think a swear box may really help you with your urges. Every time you
> >>>> fall off the wagon and find that you've accidentally sworn, put a
> >>>> pound in. At the end of each week you'll either be able to
> >>>> congratulate yourself on a job well done (if the box is empty), or
> >>>> you'll have money to give to the cycling charity of your choice.
>
> >>>> And never forget: you can do it!
>
> >>> F*** off with you attempts to make everyone into a cretin like you.
>
> >> Not sure that sentence makes
> >> sense???????????????????????????????????????
>
> > Are you sure of anything? After all you believe in sky faries so you
> > judgment must be questionable.
>

> > Please don't edit my posts (yet again) I wrote 'f***' not 'f***' ,

> > you have no rights of censorship.
>
> Don't feed the troll.

If replying to me is 'troll-feeding' (which of course it isn't,
because you and the fake cyclist are the trolls), then surely you've
been doing it more than anyone, and are therefore a hippocrete.

[M Wicks]

On Jul 15, 2:43 am, Peter Keller <muzhm...@centrum.sk> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:20:35 +0100, John Benn wrote:

> > "Judith" <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

> >news:pi0ov755csqb5ke12...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:56:20 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller

> >> <muzhm...@centrum.sk>

> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:23:22 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>
> >>>> Wicks is a cyclist. Need I say more?
>
> >>>uk.rec.cycling is here to discuss bicycling.  Need I say more?
>
> >> When was the last time that *you* discussed cycling here by any stretch
> >> of the imagination?
>
> >> 99% of your posts are nothing to do with cycling at all.
>

> >> Have I said? : you are a f***wit

>
> > Most of his posts mention fish
>
> You would not know.  I am in your killfile.

So he says. But he also says he cycles. Why you'd want to pretend to
be one of the people that you hate and spend your free time trying to
anger on a newsgroup with zero relevance to your life is another
question entirely. You're not a psychiatrist are you? It's just that I
think such a person would find the deranged and obsessive behaviour of
the uk.rec.cycling trolls quite, quite fascinating.

It's as though they just thought one night 'I'm bored. What to do?
Hmm...I know, I'll start passing the time by visiting a cycling
newsgroup several times a day with the sole intention of irritating
those who have a legitimate right to be there.' Why the sudden
decision to pick on cyclists in particular? Was there a pre-existing
obsession against them, or was there perhaps an altercation that day
with a cyclist (which obviously means that all cyclists in the UK are
to blame for that one incident, and therefore apparently deserve
continual and relentless retribution)?

And there are so many of these trolls as well. It's not just one sad
nutter. It's such a singularly pathetic thing to occupy your time
doing. But the trolls still seem incredibly proud of themselves for
causing so much disruption and driving away so many valued posters.

[M Wicks]

On Jul 15, 11:29 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>

> Sorry if you don't like the truth, but thats how it is.

Ungrammatical.

[John Benn]

"M Wicks" <mwick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:879ac92c-b03b-441b...@cu1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 15, 2:43 am, Peter Keller <muzhm...@centrum.sk> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:20:35 +0100, John Benn wrote:
> > "Judith" <jmsmith2...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:pi0ov755csqb5ke12...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:56:20 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
> >> <muzhm...@centrum.sk>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:23:22 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:
>
> >>>> Wicks is a cyclist. Need I say more?
>
> >>>uk.rec.cycling is here to discuss bicycling. Need I say more?
>
> >> When was the last time that *you* discussed cycling here by any stretch
> >> of the imagination?
>
> >> 99% of your posts are nothing to do with cycling at all.
>
> >> Have I said? : you are a f***wit
>
> > Most of his posts mention fish
>
> You would not know. I am in your killfile.

So he says. But he also says he cycles. Why you'd want to pretend to
be one of the people that you hate and spend your free time trying to
anger on a

<loads of shite snipped>

I also drive and I'm also critical of irresponsible motorists. You can be a
cyclist or driver and be justifiably critical of others using those modes of
transport in an irresponsible manner.

[thirty-six]

On Jul 15, 1:05 pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>

wrote:
> On 15/07/2012 12:56, thirty-six wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 11:29 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> On 15/07/2012 10:58, thirty-six wrote:
> >>> On Jul 15, 9:33 am, Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> Nope, they are the opinions of the majority, backed by research.  Most
> >>>> people think cyclists are bell ends.
>
> >>> How fantastic for you.  Who do you think is behind the perversion
> >>> which encouraged such a belief?
>
> >> Sorry if you don't like the truth, but thats how it is.
>
> > I believe you are misguided.  I wonder whether Angela Lee knowingly
> > causes our children to look like bell-ends or do you think she is a
> > puppet?
>
> Cyclists look like bell ends with or without helmets (no pun intended).
>
> It's just that you look a bigger bell end in a helmet.
>
> One of many reasons why they should be compulsory.
>

It is apparent you find pleasure in and seek out bell-ends, especially
big bell-ends. Many would call your interest an obsession.

[John Benn]

"thirty-six" <thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:717979e0-37b6-40c0...@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

===============================

Have some kelp tablets and sea salt. You'll feel better afterwards.

What happened to your mate? Did he overdose on the kelp?

[Dave - Cyclists VOR]

On 15/07/2012 19:12, M Wicks wrote:
> Why the sudden
> decision to pick on cyclists in particular? Was there a pre-existing
> obsession against them, or was there perhaps an altercation that day
> with a cyclist (which obviously means that all cyclists in the UK are
> to blame for that one incident, and therefore apparently deserve
> continual and relentless retribution)?

Allow me to explain Mr Troll.

The vast majority of the population hate cyclists. They consider them
sad, arrogant, law breaking, bell ends (ask your vicar what that means,
he will demonstrate on a choirboy).

Most of us are members of other NG's. Some of the more rabid
psycholists thought it a good idea to cross post their weirdo ideas to
those groups.

Once we arrived, we realised that cyclists were even bigger bell ends
than we previously thought, so we stayed to redress the balance and have
a bloody good laugh.

>
> And there are so many of these trolls as well. It's not just one sad
> nutter. It's such a singularly pathetic thing to occupy your time
> doing. But the trolls still seem incredibly proud of themselves for
> causing so much disruption and driving away so many valued posters.
>

It's fun! Much more entertaining than the rubbish on TV. Similar to
the way people used to pay to see the lunatics at Bedlam.


--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. 665 the neighbour of the beast.

[JNugent]

On 15/07/2012 19:03, M Wicks wrote:

> Dave - Cyclists VOR <davidl...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

[ ... ]

>> Don't feed the troll.

> If replying to me is 'troll-feeding' (which of course it isn't,
> because you and the fake cyclist are the trolls), then surely you've
> been doing it more than anyone, and are therefore a hippocrete.

Is that a species distantly related to the Minotaur?

[I predict that M Cretin Wicks will have to severely Google and Wiki that one
before he gets the references. And even then he probably won't get it.]

[JNugent]

That's true of you. It's true of me. It;'s even true, to a certain extent, of
Lee. But it's not true of M Cretin Wicks.

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:33:52 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

> Most
> people think cyclists are bell ends.

That is their problem. I use a bike as a very viable convenient means of
transport.