-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2)

Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Votes must be received by 23:59:59 BST, 7th August 2009.

Please note that all email addresses other than the ballot 
request address are spamtrapped or munged. Addresses on the 
ballot paper are unaltered, in accordance with standard
practice. Please take extreme care, therefore, with the ballot
paper that you receive and ensure that it is not stored in the
mail spool of a virus-infected PC.

For voting questions and queries contact
Votetaker: Pedt Scragg 
           <query (at) fairfieldtowers (dot) net>

For questions about the proposed new newsgroup please contact the
proponent.

Proponent : Ian Jackson 
            <ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk

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

Distribution:

This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups:

uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.cycling

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

This CFV contains the following sections.

1. Rationale
2. Summary of Discussion from the Proponent
3. Changes from the last RFD from the Proponent
4. Initial Moderation Policy
5. Newsgroups line
6. Charter
7. Standard Voting Instructions
8. Instructions on how to obtain a ballot paper and template

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

RATIONALE 

uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from trolling,
nym-shifting and forgeries.  Many of these posts are abusive and
hostile to cycling.  Repetitive flamage now constitutes 50-75% of 
the group by number of articles.  This ongoing and worsening problem 
has been making the group nearly unuseable for ordinary discussion; 
many posters have already left.

I therefore propose that we should create:

uk.rec.cycling.moderated

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

PROPONENT's Summary of Discussion

This CFV (and the 2nd RFD, which was almost identical) is the 
result of major changes made to the 1st RFD following extensive 1st 
RFD discussion.  The current proposal is much shorter and simpler 
than the 1st RFD and and has a much more light-touch moderation 
policy.

Following the 2nd RFD there was once more an extensive and wide
ranging discussion.  Unfortunately, of the >1400 articles, a 
majority were personal abuse and off-topic ranting.  However, there 
were also some important and relevant points.

At least 31 people posted to say that they were in favour of the
proposal and would like to see it enacted; some of these were 
departed posters from urc who said they would return to use the new 
group.

Many specific questions were asked about the moderators' views 
about various kinds of moderation decision.  One proposed moderator 
reviewed a period of posts to uk.rec.cycling and posted a list of 
messages they would have approved.

Questions were asked and about my technical facilities and skills
as proposed moderation systems host; additionally the operator of
moderation.org.uk kindly volunteered to help with the hosting.

Some people objected to moderation in principle, and/or raised more
detailed objections.  While these objections were strongly expressed
and vigorously pursued often at length, they came from only a handful
of posters and in my view were not supported more generally.

The method by which the moderators were selected was again examined 
in some detail.  It was suggested that the moderators should be
individually elected.  This would be an unusual practice for a
moderated group and in my view raises at least as many problems as it
solves.  The discussion consensus was in favour of the usual approach
(which is to vote on the moderation panel as a whole, and thereafter
have the moderators appoint their successors).

The question of the crossposting policy was once again discussed at
length.  Even amonst more experienced participants in the discussion
there was no clear consensus on whether the moderation policy should
absolutely ban all crossposting.  I have chosen to retain the existing
wording as this will be more truthful (for example, appropriate usenet
management announcements such as RFDs will be permitted the new
moderated group).  The moderators made it clear that they intend to
ban crossposing to uk.rec.cycling and of course crossposted trolling.

There was extensive discussion of the appeal and escalation options
and processes available to people who disagree with moderation
decisions; the answers did not appear to satisfy the objectors.

There was much discussion of the exact status of .signatures,
particularly .sigs containing inflammatory statements (which have been
a problematic feature in urc).  The moderators indicated that messages
with flamebait in the .sig would be rejected.  A few posters objected
and complained that this wasn't spelled out in the moderation policy.

Some other objections I rejected:  The moderation panel was a clique.
The encouragement of `General discussion amongst UK cyclists' was
purely there to allow the clique to post whatever they liked.  The
point was to let people be nasty to trolls without letting trolls
reply.  Permitting limited discussion of the moderation policy in 
the group itself would surely spell doom for the new group.  The
moderators should not blacklist persistent offenders or should only 
do so with reference to some formal procedure.  Crossposting was not
being 100% ruled out because the plan was to crosspost trolling rants
in hostile newsgroups.  Moderation decisions should be governed by
published procedures to ensure consistency.  The failure of
uk.local.yorkshire.moderated demonstrated that creating a moderated
newsgroup could not solve a noise problem.  uk.rec.cycling had been
much better recently so it would be better to wait six months and see
if moderation was still needed then.

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

CHANGES from the last RFD

Banning `obscenity' gave the impression that cursing would not be
permitted, despite the general view (as in the previous discussion)
that it should be allowed.  `Obscenity' was also thought rather 
vague. There being no reason to retain it, The moderation policy 
has been altered to remove `obscenity' from the list of things 
prohibited.

Asking posters to uk.rec.cycling to `switch' to the new group was 
felt by some to be inappropriate. The moderation policy now speaks
of 'inviting posters and readers' without suggesting that they 
should abandon the unmoderated group.

The rationale previously referred to telephone harassment suffered 
by a poster to uk.rec.cycling.  This didn't add anything to the 
proposal and was needlessly controversial so, following suggestions 
in the discussion, this has been removed.

There are no changes to the charter or moderator panel.

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

INITIAL MODERATION POLICY

The following are on-topic and encouraged:
 * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
 * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
   on cycling within the UK;
 * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
 * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.

The following are prohibited:
 * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
 * Personal abuse; flames;
 * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
   discussion.

Crossposting is at present generally not permitted.
Brief and constructive discussion of the moderation policy is
permitted in the newsgroup itself.


The moderators operate a passlist system, so that messages from
regular on-topic posters can be posted promptly and automatically.
Threads which have descended into repetition or abuse may be closed by
the moderators.

Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole
moderation panel.

This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit.

The moderators can be reached at
  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/

A summary of approved and rejected posts is available on the website.

The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
advertising the moderated group and inviting readers and posters.

Moderators:

  Alan Braggins
  Andy Leighton
  Danny Colyer
  David Damerell
  Ian Jackson
  Martin Dann
  Nigel Cliffe
  Peter Clinch
  Peter Fox
  Roger Thorpe
  Simon Brooke

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

NEWSGROUPS LINE

uk.rec.cycling.moderated              Cycling in the UK (Moderated)

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

CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
other forms of cycling are all on-topic.

Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil,
pleasant, and of interest to cyclists.

The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively
feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group.


Binaries and Formatting

Encoded binaries (eg pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a
pointer may be posted.  Cryptographic signatures (eg PGP) may be used
where authentication is important and should be as short as possible.

Posts must be readable as plain text.  HTML, RTF and similarly
formatted messages are prohibited.  To see how to make some common
news readers comply with this, read  
http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html

END CHARTER

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

VOTING INSTRUCTIONS

If you fail to follow the instructions below your ballot paper may
be ruled invalid. This means your vote will not be counted.

1) One person, one vote.

2) No two voters may vote from the same email address.
   In the event that only one address is available to two persons
   who both wish to vote, both these persons should contact the
   votetaker prior to voting.

3) Votes must be emailed directly from the voter to the address
   specified by the votetaker.

4) There may be technical reasons, such as breaks in the email
   headers of your ballot, which may mean that the votetaker is
   unable to confirm the validity of your vote. The votetaker
   will contact you if there are any irregularities.

If you have followed the voting instructions correctly, you will
receive an acknowledgement of your vote within five days from the
votetaker.
This does not always mean that your vote is valid. The votetaker
will contact you if there is a problem with your vote.

If you do not receive an acknowledgement of receipt of your ballot
paper within five days you should contact the votetaker.

If the acknowledgement "bounces" back to the votetaker (the mail
containing the acknowledgment is returned as undeliverable by a
mailserver), your vote will not be counted.

It is your responsibility to ensure that your ballot paper has been
received by checking that the acknowledgement arrives. You should
also check that your vote is recorded correctly in the
acknowledgement. If there are any problems with your
acknowledgement, you should contact the votetaker.

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

HOW TO VOTE

This vote is being run with a voting system which was introduced
in January 2003, so if you haven't voted since then this is going
to be new to you.

Please read the instructions carefully.

Under this new system, the email address that will be published in
the results is the one that the ballot paper was sent to. So for
example if a ballot paper was sent to example-voter@ukvoting.org.uk,
this would be the address shown in the result. This address has to
be valid, otherwise you will not receive a ballot paper.

To receive a ballot paper, you must send an email to the Ballot
Request Address, which is xurcm <at> request.ukvoting.org.uk.

For most news-reading software, just replying by email to this post
will address your email correctly, but *please check* that the
address above is actually in the To field before you send the mail.

We recognise that sometimes people submit their votes from
different addresses for varying reasons, especially when more than
one email address is available to a voter. If you want the results
to record your vote as coming from a different address to that
from which you post your request, you can do this by putting the
address you want recorded in the Reply-To field in your ballot
request. If you do not know how to do this, or if you are unable
for whatever reason, then put the address you want recorded in the
Subject line of your ballot request instead.

Note: Please remember that you must be able to read email sent to
the address you choose to use as your voting address, otherwise you
will be unable to retrieve your ballot paper and you will be unable
to vote.

If you change the Subject field in your email to contain the
address you want to use, it doesn't matter whether you also include
your name or not, and it doesn't matter whether you enclose your
voting address in <angle brackets> or not.

It also doesn't matter whether you quote this entire post or
delete everything when making your ballot request.

THE REPLY TO YOUR REQUEST

If the autoresponder understands your voting address in the Subject
or other fields, it will send a ballot paper immediately to that
address. This ballot paper will be personalised and unique to the
voting address used.

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

CASTING YOUR VOTE

Your personalised ballot paper will contain a ballot ID and will
have your voting address prefilled for your convenience.

Do not change either of these or your vote will not be valid. If
you want to use a different voting address you must request
another ballot paper for the new address.

1) Enter the name under which you want your vote recorded in the
   results. This must be either your real name or the pseudonym
   ("handle") which you normally use to post to usenet.

2) Enter the email address which you normally use to post to
   Usenet, including the spamblock if applicable. If you use a
   number of different email addresses, please give the most
   recent, a typical or the most commonly used address. If, and
   only if, you do not post to Usenet, enter the word "none".
   Please do not enter any text in this field other than your
   posting address or the word "none". If you have any doubt as
   to how to complete this section, please contact the votetaker.

   This section is recommended but optional and is to help the
   votetaker verify your vote. If you do not answer this question,
   and the votetaker cannot verify your identity from the other
   information on the ballot, then the votetaker will need to
   carry out further investigations which may include contacting
   you for additional information. If you are unable or unwilling
   to provide such information if requested, your vote might not
   be counted.

3) Mark your voting preferences, as indicated on the ballot
   according to the instructions below.

4) Send your vote.

This vote is being conducted under the Yes/No procedure.

This vote requires a simple 'yes', 'no' response as you wish

The letters Y/N may be used if you prefer.

You may abstain, and have your abstention recorded in the results,
by filling in one or more of the voting boxes [ ] with A or
ABSTAIN. Similarly if you wish to Cancel a vote and have no record
in the results, use C or CANCEL on your ballot paper, and resubmit
it.

You may resubmit your ballot, with different choices, at any time
up to the close of the vote. Your identification details on the
resubmitted ballot paper must be the same as earlier ones.
Repeat votes will be resolved in favour of the last valid ballot
paper.

The purpose of this vote is to determine the genuine interest of
persons who would read the proposed newsgroup.

Soliciting votes from disinterested parties defeats this purpose.
Under no circumstances should you post your completed ballot paper
to any Usenet/Net News newsgroup or other forum.

If you ignore any of these instructions, your vote may be rejected
as invalid. This includes, but is not limited to, any false answers
given on the ballot paper or any attempt to circumvent the "one
person, one vote" rule or to conceal your identity.

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF YOUR BALLOT PAPER

The votetaker will send you an acknowledgement so that you know
that your ballot paper has been received. This may take up to five
days.

If you have not received such an acknowledgement after five days,
then contact the votetaker directly at the following address:
query (at) fairfieldtowers (dot) net

An acknowledgement does not necessarily mean that your vote will be
counted.

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

VOTE VALIDATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY

The acknowledgement which you receive (see above) will contain
details of how you voted. Check this acknowledgement carefully. If
there are any problems, or you did not vote then contact the
votetaker straight away.

During or at the end of the vote, the votetaker will validate every
vote submitted, and the votetaker may need to contact you
concerning any problem or query. You must assist the votetaker's
reasonable efforts to clarify any problem or query with regard to
your vote otherwise your vote may not be counted. Any communication
between the votetaker and yourself must not be considered to be
confidential and the votetaker reserves the right to publish any
information that the votetaker deems relevant to the vote
within the results post.

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

RESULTS

The names, addresses and vote preferences of all valid and invalid
votes will be published in the results, which are posted to
uk.net.news.announce.

All published email addresses will be scrambled to prevent them
being harvested by spammers.

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

The ballot paper will contain the following question(s).

The question(s) are shown below so that you know what you will
be asked on the ballot paper. You cannot use this to vote,
you must request a ballot paper.

Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated?

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

TROUBLESHOOTING

If you have any problems whatsoever with this process, contact the
votetaker directly at query <at> fairfieldtowers (dot) net

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

VOTING AND APPEAL GUIDELINES

This vote was conducted by neutral third party members of UKVoting.
UKVoting is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on
CFVs in the uk hierarchy.  The rules under which this vote is taken
are posted regularly to uk.net.news.announce or can be found at the
following URL:

<ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-info/news.answers/uk/voting>

The UKVoting web pages can be found at <http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG-v1.4.9-(Cygwin)
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBSmSycGOfGXkh8vHZAQK5kQP/RRMuaFtwJ00gUrDo//OHAOtd31hg1abD
2G4CKl718pz4nVHDjET8kpVhUAwQW8A7QgdrI7wQ42Vkxkn9QQLQnMSgOHm0cgcY
jImaNR8FaKFtTnqrJtTAhX00wl0HxTSE2dHV09DtM93YLVbxdRnz0EvI8JOCPAVS
Qcw4Li3NEVM=
=/1d/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I just wish all those in favour of moderation would get the fuck out of 
here.

"Clive George"  considered Mon, 20 Jul 2009
19:21:10 +0100 the perfect time to write:

>Yay! - I was just beginning to wonder when this was going to happen. 
>
Voted, now my mailserver and theirs have sorted out their differences.

On 20 July, 21:38, Happi Monday  wrote:
> I just wish all those in favour of moderation would get the fuck out of
> here.

I expect they will if the moderated group is created!

Rudi

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:21:10 +0100 someone who may be "Clive George"
 wrote this:-

>Yay! - I was just beginning to wonder when this was going to happen. 

Interestingly the original post has still not propagated to my
server, but the replies have.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:21:10 +0100 someone who may be "Clive George"
>  wrote this:-
>
>> Yay! - I was just beginning to wonder when this was going to happen.
>
> Interestingly the original post has still not propagated to my
> server, but the replies have.

A multi-group cross-posting rule stopped it appearing in my news client.
The alternative "no rules" view had it.
The CFV has one more group than the followups due to appearing in u.n.n.a.
No idea if that is affective your view.



 - Nigel



-- 
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

"David Hansen"  wrote in message 
news:rb9b651kjlikl35r4ogvvpdccgt1pcfriv@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:21:10 +0100 someone who may be "Clive George"
>  wrote this:-
>
>>Yay! - I was just beginning to wonder when this was going to happen.
>
> Interestingly the original post has still not propagated to my
> server, but the replies have.

I haven't seen the Call For Votes message either on my news server.  Has it 
been cancelled?

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:47:05 +0100 someone who may be "Nigel Cliffe"
 wrote this:-

>A multi-group cross-posting rule stopped it appearing in my news client.
>The alternative "no rules" view had it.
>The CFV has one more group than the followups due to appearing in u.n.n.a.
>No idea if that is affective your view.

No idea either, can't be bothered to check. It was easier to look up
the posting in Google.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Mr Benn wrote:
> "David Hansen"  wrote in message
> news:rb9b651kjlikl35r4ogvvpdccgt1pcfriv@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:21:10 퍝 someone who may be "Clive George"
>>  wrote this:-
>> 
>>> Yay! - I was just beginning to wonder when this was going to happen.
>> 
>> Interestingly the original post has still not propagated to my
>> server, but the replies have.
> 
> I haven't seen the Call For Votes message either on my news server. 
> Has it been cancelled?

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_thread/thread/b1c13d7c7c2aec18


-- 
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:25:16 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:

>Interestingly the original post has still not propagated to my
>server, but the replies have.

It's on news.individual.net, at least.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
Vote YES to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated, aka
uk.rec.cycling.civil-pleasant-and-of-interest-to-cyclists

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:07:43 +0100, Pedt Scragg
 wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2)
>
>Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
>Votes must be received by 23:59:59 BST, 7th August 2009.


I'm sorry - there are some minor discrepancies/omissions I have
corrected

<snip>

>Many specific questions were asked about the moderators' views 
>about various kinds of moderation decision.  

And a number of these were never answered.

>Questions were asked and about my technical facilities and skills
>as proposed moderation systems host; 


Indeed - and this was before it was realised that chiark could not
cope with input  from certain Microsoft systems and effectively threw
them away.

How predictive?

>The method by which the moderators were selected was again examined 
>in some detail. 

Rubbish.

For selected - read "hand-picked" even though there were objections to
some of those proposed - these objections were never answered.

>It was suggested that the moderators should be
>individually elected. 

It was confirmed that the moderators had been individually selected -
despite very valid reasons being raised against the suitability of
some of them.

Despite a simple process of voting for moderators being suggested -
this was discarded as too democratic and indeed may have lead to
people who were much too fair and unbiased being elected; this would
have been against the whole ethos of the proposed group.


>There was much discussion of the exact status of .signatures,
>particularly .sigs containing inflammatory statements (which have been
>a problematic feature in urc).  The moderators indicated that messages
>with flamebait in the .sig would be rejected.  A few posters objected
>and complained that this wasn't spelled out in the moderation policy.


In this case it was accepted that inflammatory meant inflammatory only
to those individuals who had the inability to ignore facts which they
disagreed with.

No-one argued to be able to post material in a sig which would have
been banned in the body of the post.

To treat a sig in the same fashion as the body of the post would have
been much too easy; and would not have allowed the banning of posts on
a sig just because it  includes  unpalatable material.   

"flamebait in the .sig" - will be defined as anything factually
correct, which would be permissible in the body of a post but which
has been posted by "undesirables".


>Some other objections I rejected:  

ie Most, if not all, objections I rejected:

>The moderation panel was a clique.

"They were hand picked by me, as I knew they would toe my party line.
They demonstrated this admirably when I asked them to stop responding
to queries as individuals in the discussion - or to check with me
before they did so"


>The point was to let people be nasty to trolls without letting trolls
>reply. 

"I ignored this.  It will permit people to say something, which is for
example,  anti-motorist in the group with no "right of reply".  We
will closely vet the views of "outsiders". 

> The moderators should not blacklist persistent offenders or should only 
>do so with reference to some formal procedure.

"I made this bit up.

There was no push that persistent offenders should not be blacklisted.

People did object to people being blacklisted with no explanation as
to why.  I rejected this as it would stop us being able to blacklist
certain people without giving an explanation.  People will now be able
to contact me via email and say they are getting fed up with Mr X
expressing a certain point of view and Mr X can be blacklisted.  Job
done."  


(Please note - do not use a Microsoft system to e-mail me: see below)

>CHANGES from the last RFD

>The rationale previously referred to telephone harassment suffered 
>by a poster to uk.rec.cycling.  This didn't add anything to the 
>proposal and was needlessly controversial so, following suggestions 
>in the discussion, this has been removed.

Despite a number of people pointing out that this was only "alleged" -
I still prefer not to use that word.

<snip>


>Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
>to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole
>moderation panel.
>
>This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit.
>
>The moderators can be reached at
>  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk



When I say "by private email to the whole moderation panel", it should
be noted that the e-mail address above, provided for people to contact
the moderators does not always work.

There were problem with posts to this address during the discussion
process - I ignored those posts.

A significant class of people will NOT be able to contact the
moderation panel by this address as I refuse to recognise that there
is a problem with my email system.

It is Microsoft who are at fault.  I have asked them to alter their
system but they have refused.

This point was brought up by a number of people in the earlier
discussion and was never resolved.

I decided to ignore the objections as I am too pig-headed, and it
gives people a taste of things to come:

People suggest something sensible - and I totally ignore it. 

Many people have said that this in itself will be sufficient for them
to vote NO to the proposal.

Well tough - it will be my group and I will do what I like.

 
>The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
>advertising the moderated group and inviting readers and posters.

"If they can be arsed" - many chose to make little or even no
contribution to the discussion; and will probably take a similar
interest in the moderation process.  This will not matter as most
acceptable posters will be white-listed and their posts will pass
through the moderation system straight away.  It will only be the
potentially troublesome posters who get put in a queue before we
discard the post.

 
<snip>


>The purpose of this vote is to determine the genuine interest of
>persons who would read the proposed newsgroup.

AND will also allow people who object to the formation of the group -
on whatever grounds - to vote NO - against the formation of the group.

You may vote either way for the proposed group - for whatever reason.
Whether  you will or will not use the proposed  group in the future is
neither here nor there.

>Soliciting votes from disinterested parties defeats this purpose.

Rubbish - there may well be many people who are interested but who
have not yet decided whether to vote.  These people may be helped in
their decision making process.

--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Jul 20, 7:07 pm, Pedt Scragg  wrote:
> Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

If you are the sort of person who, when reading an opposing point of
view which you can't refute, prefers to censor that point of view
rather than even contemplating the possibility that you might be wrong
and *that's* why you can't refute the opposing point of view, go right
ahead and vote for the proposal.  If, on the other hand, you actually
care about the truth, and aren't so arrogant and stubborn that you are
incapable of ever admitting you're wrong and changing your mind about
anything no matter what evidence is presented to you, vote against the
proposal.

What percentage of URC posters fall into the first category, and what
percentage fall into the second?  We will find out.  Unfortunately, I
don't think there's much doubt as to how the majority will vote, given
the extensive arrogance and attempts to censor "awkward" truths that
we've had to date.

> The rationale previously referred to telephone harassment suffered
> by a poster to uk.rec.cycling.  This didn't add anything to the
> proposal and was needlessly controversial so, following suggestions
> in the discussion, this has been removed.

*Alleged* harassment.  If you needed any proof as to the bias of
Jackson and his unsuitability for being a moderator, then his complete
willingness to take Chapman's word for it simply because he hates
motorists should be enough for you.

On Jul 20, 7:07 pm, Pedt Scragg  wrote:
> The rationale previously referred to telephone harassment suffered
> by a poster to uk.rec.cycling.  This didn't add anything to the
> proposal and was needlessly controversial so, following suggestions
> in the discussion, this has been removed.

Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at http://myreader.co.uk/msg/130418587.aspx
(search for "Montgomery").  And look.  Putting his name and address
into http://www.bt.com/directoryenquiries yields his phone number.
Hopefully the non-existent crank caller who reads this group will
indulge in a spot of "telefragging".  If it were me who'd called
Chapman, I certainly would have done the same to Jackson by now, as
he's pissed me off enough, not least by refusing to admit that the
"telephone harassment" is only alleged.

Hopefully Jackson will think twice next time before making fuckwitted
insinuations about people by taking the word of a lying car-hating
fruitcake over anyone else's.  He seems to think that having a
Cambridge degree gives him some right to treat everyone else with
incredible arrogance and not suffer any consequences.  One day he'll
learn the hard way that that's not the case.  Indeed, if he had been
right about the "telephone harassment", he would already have done so.

Fuckwit.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:09:37 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
 wrote:

>On Jul 20, 7:07 pm, Pedt Scragg  wrote:
>> The rationale previously referred to telephone harassment suffered
>> by a poster to uk.rec.cycling.  This didn't add anything to the
>> proposal and was needlessly controversial so, following suggestions
>> in the discussion, this has been removed.
>
>Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at http://myreader.co.uk/msg/130418587.aspx
>(search for "Montgomery").  And look.  Putting his name and address
>into http://www.bt.com/directoryenquiries yields his phone number.
>Hopefully the non-existent crank caller who reads this group will
>indulge in a spot of "telefragging".  If it were me who'd called
>Chapman, I certainly would have done the same to Jackson by now, as
>he's pissed me off enough, not least by refusing to admit that the
>"telephone harassment" is only alleged.
>
>Hopefully Jackson will think twice next time before making fuckwitted
>insinuations about people by taking the word of a lying car-hating
>fruitcake over anyone else's.  He seems to think that having a
>Cambridge degree gives him some right to treat everyone else with
>incredible arrogance and not suffer any consequences.  One day he'll
>learn the hard way that that's not the case.  Indeed, if he had been
>right about the "telephone harassment", he would already have done so.
>
>Fuckwit.


I see he sent his request by email - I trust that
foi@cambs.pnn.police.uk don't use a Microsoft system as they may have
just binned it.


(I think that's  how these systems work ;-)


--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:09:37 
 
uk.rec.cycling Nuxx Bar 

>Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at

I am very uncomfortable with this sort of posting.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> On Jul 20, 7:07 pm, Pedt Scragg  wrote:
>> The rationale previously referred to telephone harassment suffered
>> by a poster to uk.rec.cycling.  This didn't add anything to the
>> proposal and was needlessly controversial so, following suggestions
>> in the discussion, this has been removed.
> 
> Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at http://myreader.co.uk/msg/130418587.aspx
> (search for "Montgomery").  And look.  Putting his name and address
> into http://www.bt.com/directoryenquiries yields his phone number.
> Hopefully the non-existent crank caller who reads this group will
> indulge in a spot of "telefragging".  If it were me who'd called
> Chapman, I certainly would have done the same to Jackson by now, as
> he's pissed me off enough, not least by refusing to admit that the
> "telephone harassment" is only alleged.
> 

Will you ever make your mind up?
Either there is no crank-caller or there is.
And now you are inciting phone harrassment.

You are far, far worse than Chapman or Doug, crying wolf while wearing a 
wolfskin.


> Hopefully Jackson will think twice next time before making fuckwitted
> insinuations about people by taking the word of a lying car-hating
> fruitcake over anyone else's.  He seems to think that having a
> Cambridge degree gives him some right to treat everyone else with
> incredible arrogance and not suffer any consequences.  One day he'll
> learn the hard way that that's not the case.  Indeed, if he had been
> right about the "telephone harassment", he would already have done so.
> 
> Fuckwit.


Why is it that your language is so, so similar to that of JMS.
How come that the pair of you post similar stuff and in the same wave of 
postings?


You are both thoroughly pissed off that the ball is being taken away, 
your plaything placed out of the way of the bullies and shitspreaders, 
the ones who hate anyone who mentions they are a cyclist as they must 
agree with everyne else on the group.

Ages ago you said you were not in to bullying, not into playing the 'us 
and them' game but so far, you have proved yourself to be a liar.

You are - in the words of Daffy Smith 'Dethpicable' and will have to 
vent your spleen to your acolytes who will continue to follow your utter 
bottom-dribble on urc. Still mictuating in a non-leeward direction, 
still red-necked and ever angry at anyone who is a traitor to the four 
-wheeled cause. In trying to be the king of the farmyard you have only 
succeeded to become Foghorn-Leghorn.

You and a few others have created the need for 'moderated' but now have 
to face up to it.




-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Wm... wrote:
> Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:09:37 
>  
> uk.rec.cycling Nuxx Bar 
> 
>> Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at
> 
> I am very uncomfortable with this sort of posting.
> 

It's all part of his constant and pointless attempt (along with jms) to 
discredit anyone who has anything to do with ucrm -  or, indeed, cycling.

-- 

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On 22 July, 17:14, jms  wrote:

>
> >Soliciting votes from disinterested parties defeats this purpose.
>
> Rubbish - there may well be many people who are interested but who
> have not yet decided whether to vote.  These people may be helped in
> their decision making process.
>
> --      
>
> Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

I'm fairly sure nobody on this newsgroup (uk.transport) gives a flying
fuck if a bunch of cyclists want to form an official clique, piss off
and bleat elsewhere if you don't mind

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:22:52  
uk.rec.cycling Keitht <KeithT@?.?.invalid>

>Wm... wrote:
>> Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:09:37 
>> 
>>uk.rec.cycling Nuxx Bar 
>>
>>> Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at
>>  I am very uncomfortable with this sort of posting.
>>
>
>It's all part of his constant and pointless attempt (along with jms) to 
>discredit anyone who has anything to do with ucrm -  or, indeed, 
>cycling.


I can only think it doesn't understand that a vote is being taken. 
Perhaps it thinks the UKV and UK Committee members addresses should be 
made public too?  Perhaps it doesn't understand that we (uk.*) have been 
through this sort of thing before.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On 23 July, 09:43, NM  wrote:
> On 22 July, 17:14, jms  wrote:
>
>
>
> > >Soliciting votes from disinterested parties defeats this purpose.
>
> > Rubbish - there may well be many people who are interested but who
> > have not yet decided whether to vote.  These people may be helped in
> > their decision making process.
>
> > --      
>
> > Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored
>
> I'm fairly sure nobody on this newsgroup (uk.transport) gives a flying
> fuck if a bunch of cyclists want to form an official clique, piss off
> and bleat elsewhere if you don't mind

Yes, that gets my vote too :-)

Mike P

Nuxx Bar wrote:
  > Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at 
8888888888888888888888888
   And look.  Putting his name and address
> into 88888888888888888888888888888888888yields his phone number.
> Hopefully the non-existent crank caller who reads this group will
> indulge in a spot of "telefragging".  If it were me who'd called
> Chapman, I certainly would have done the same to Jackson by now, as
> he's pissed me off enough, not least by refusing to admit that the
> "telephone harassment" is only alleged.
>
As if any more evidence that nuxx did make crank calls were needed he 
goes on to provide some more.
Choking on his own poisonous bile.
-- 
Roger Thorpe

...you had the whole damn thing all wrong/
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...

On Jul 23, 10:59 am, "Wm..." 
wrote:
> Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:09:37
> 
> uk.rec.cycling Nuxx Bar 
>
> >Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at
>
> I am very uncomfortable with this sort of posting.

I look forward to the setting up of a moderated group where it would
not appear, still less be reposted and thereby escape killfiles.

James

"Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message 
news:58c2184e-6edf-4d97-a673-96e2700b2327@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at <snipped>

You are straying onto the wrong side of the law.  I recommend you quit this 
nonsense now.  I thoroughly disapprove of any incitement to harass other 
people.

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:54:28 
 
uk.rec.cycling James 

>On Jul 23, 10:59 am, "Wm..." 
>wrote:
>> Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:09:37
>> 
>> uk.rec.cycling Nuxx Bar 
>>
>> >Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at
>>
>> I am very uncomfortable with this sort of posting.
>
>I look forward to the setting up of a moderated group where it would
>not appear, still less be reposted and thereby escape killfiles.

Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless? 
(I haven't noticed anyone else supporting this sort of baseness)

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Jul 23, 1:10 pm, "Wm..." 
wrote:
> Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless?
> (I haven't noticed anyone else supporting this sort of baseness)

I foresee an epic tantrum from both if the new group is formed.  I'd
like to be wrong about that, but...
--
Guy

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Jul 23, 1:10 pm, "Wm..." 
> wrote:
>> Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue
>> regardless? (I haven't noticed anyone else supporting this sort of
>> baseness)
>
> I foresee an epic tantrum from both if the new group is formed.  I'd
> like to be wrong about that, but...

Would that be a new epic tantrum or a re-run of the old one?

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:22:52 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

>Wm... wrote:
>> Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:09:37 
>>  
>> uk.rec.cycling Nuxx Bar 
>> 
>>> Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at
>> 
>> I am very uncomfortable with this sort of posting.
>> 
>
>It's all part of his constant and pointless attempt (along with jms) to 
>discredit anyone who has anything to do with ucrm -  or, indeed, cycling.


Sorry sunshine - what exactly are you accusing me of?

Don't beat about the bush - let's be knowing.

--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:03:05 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

<snip>

>Perhaps it doesn't understand that we (uk.*) have been 
>through this sort of thing before.

Hello Wanker:


What do you mean "we (uk.*) ?


What exactly do you think your role is?

Don't be shy - you do have one don't you?


Do you like watching fire-engines as well?

--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:10:16 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:54:28 
> 
>uk.rec.cycling James 
>
>>On Jul 23, 10:59 am, "Wm..." 
>>wrote:
>>> Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:09:37
>>> 
>>> uk.rec.cycling Nuxx Bar 
>>>
>>> >Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at
>>>
>>> I am very uncomfortable with this sort of posting.
>>
>>I look forward to the setting up of a moderated group where it would
>>not appear, still less be reposted and thereby escape killfiles.
>
>Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless? 
>(I haven't noticed anyone else supporting this sort of baseness)


Have you seen me support it?

No? - so keep your gob shut.

I find it quite "base" when someone accuses you of doing something
when they know it's just not true; what do you think?

No wonder you are known as Wanking Willie.

--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:27:45 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Jul 23, 1:10 pm, "Wm..." 
>wrote:
>> Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless?
>> (I haven't noticed anyone else supporting this sort of baseness)
>
>I foresee an epic tantrum from both if the new group is formed.  I'd
>like to be wrong about that, but...


Good old Chapman - keep things on the boil.

Remind me - why is the new group needed?

--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:54:54 +0100, Keitht <KeithT> wrote:

>Nuxx Bar wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 7:07 pm, Pedt Scragg  wrote:
>>> The rationale previously referred to telephone harassment suffered
>>> by a poster to uk.rec.cycling.  This didn't add anything to the
>>> proposal and was needlessly controversial so, following suggestions
>>> in the discussion, this has been removed.
>> 
>> Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at http://myreader.co.uk/msg/130418587.aspx
>> (search for "Montgomery").  And look.  Putting his name and address
>> into http://www.bt.com/directoryenquiries yields his phone number.
>> Hopefully the non-existent crank caller who reads this group will
>> indulge in a spot of "telefragging".  If it were me who'd called
>> Chapman, I certainly would have done the same to Jackson by now, as
>> he's pissed me off enough, not least by refusing to admit that the
>> "telephone harassment" is only alleged.
>> 
>
>Will you ever make your mind up?
>Either there is no crank-caller or there is.
>And now you are inciting phone harrassment.
>
>You are far, far worse than Chapman or Doug, crying wolf while wearing a 
>wolfskin.
>
>
>> Hopefully Jackson will think twice next time before making fuckwitted
>> insinuations about people by taking the word of a lying car-hating
>> fruitcake over anyone else's.  He seems to think that having a
>> Cambridge degree gives him some right to treat everyone else with
>> incredible arrogance and not suffer any consequences.  One day he'll
>> learn the hard way that that's not the case.  Indeed, if he had been
>> right about the "telephone harassment", he would already have done so.
>> 
>> Fuckwit.
>
>
>Why is it that your language is so, so similar to that of JMS.
>How come that the pair of you post similar stuff and in the same wave of 
>postings?

Don't beat about the bush sunshine - say what you mean.

You've been wrong many times - you are wrong again.

Now if you want to wonder about Ron/Guy/Lou you might be on to
something.


--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:49:23 +0100, Roger Thorpe
 wrote:

>Nuxx Bar wrote:
>  > Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at 
>8888888888888888888888888
>   And look.  Putting his name and address
>> into 88888888888888888888888888888888888yields his phone number.
>> Hopefully the non-existent crank caller who reads this group will
>> indulge in a spot of "telefragging".  If it were me who'd called
>> Chapman, I certainly would have done the same to Jackson by now, as
>> he's pissed me off enough, not least by refusing to admit that the
>> "telephone harassment" is only alleged.
>>
>As if any more evidence that nuxx did make crank calls were needed he 
>goes on to provide some more.
>Choking on his own poisonous bile.


You obviously do not understand this word "evidence".


--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

"jms"  wrote in message 
news:q14h65lnjih5c6t5go052kg0kq06c2bg3a@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:27:45 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>  wrote:
>
>>On Jul 23, 1:10 pm, "Wm..." 
>>wrote:
>>> Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless?
>>> (I haven't noticed anyone else supporting this sort of baseness)
>>
>>I foresee an epic tantrum from both if the new group is formed.  I'd
>>like to be wrong about that, but...
>
>
> Good old Chapman - keep things on the boil.
>
> Remind me - why is the new group needed?

To err, save us from the continuous bile from judith and Nuxxy :-(

In message , jms 
 writes
>Hello Wanker:

Uk.rec.cycling, moderated or not, is no big deal. Personally I like to 
see amusing and interesting posts on cycling. Unfortunately, as we all 
know, there is a lot of "noise" in this group. A proposal has been made 
to set up a moderated group to filter out the noise. I'm agnostic. If 
the moderated group works, I'll follow it. If not, uk.rec.cycling as 
normal.

What puzzles me is the appearance of jms  
with his/her often abusive posts (viz. "Hello Wanker"). These posts only 
started in May http://tinyurl.com/lmgevt and yet s/he professes the most 
profound and heart-felt opposition to a moderated group. A strange 
position for such a new-comer. jms professes to be a cyclist 
http://tinyurl.com/l9rzbf but I have yet to see him/her make a post 
regarding cycling. Furthermore s/he constantly attacks Guy Chapman who 
makes frequent and relevant posts about cycling, also defending, not 
always wisely, the status of cycling.

So what gives?

jms, are you sick, are you political, are you lonely? Why do you (only 
recently) hate the idea of moderation so much? Personally, I think a 
political motivation most likely because that is rational, albeit from a 
rabid cycle-hating point of view. If however, you are sick, please see a 
doctor. If you are lonely seek out some friends. If you are political, 
then unfortunately you know exactly what you are doing.

So, jms, how about a post about cycling? What bike(s) do you ride, where 
do you go, when was your last near miss with a powered vehicle? That is 
what the group is about, in its current incarnation or a possible future 
moderated form.

uk.rec.cycling.moderated, why not? It might work, it might not, but 
there is no harm in its existence.

-- 
geomannie (will not be following up this post)

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:30:37 +0100, "mileburner"
 wrote:

>To err, save us from the continuous bile from judith and Nuxxy :-( 

But surely you realise, the problem is /everybody else/.

And of course one possible outcome is that the /everybody else/ who
constitute the problem will move to the new group, leaving this one to
the two people who, uniquely, are not part of the problem.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.

On Jul 23, 6:30 pm, "mileburner"  wrote:
> "jms"  wrote in message
>
> news:q14h65lnjih5c6t5go052kg0kq06c2bg3a@4ax.com...
>
> > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:27:45 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> >  wrote:
>
> >>On Jul 23, 1:10 pm, "Wm..." 
> >>wrote:
> >>> Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless> >>> (I haven't noticed anyone else supporting this sort of baseness)
>
> >>I foresee an epic tantrum from both if the new group is formed.  I'd
> >>like to be wrong about that, but...
>
> > Good old Chapman - keep things on the boil.
>
> > Remind me - why is the new group needed?
>
> To err, save us from the continuous bile from judith and Nuxxy :-(

Isn't it nice to see the car-haters sticking together and backing each
other up yet again?  "I know really that it's Chapman who's
responsible for URC's problems, but it wouldn't do to say that,
because he hates motorists like me, so I'll just lie and claim that
others (who don't hate motorists) are responsible instead.  Job done,
and as usual I haven't let the truth inconvenience me.  Regards,
BileChurner."

On Jul 23, 10:49 am, Roger Thorpe 
wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>
>   > Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at
> 8888888888888888888888888
>    And look.  Putting his name and address> into 88888888888888888888888888888888888yields his phone number.
> > Hopefully the non-existent crank caller who reads this group will
> > indulge in a spot of "telefragging".  If it were me who'd called
> > Chapman, I certainly would have done the same to Jackson by now, as
> > he's pissed me off enough, not least by refusing to admit that the
> > "telephone harassment" is only alleged.
>
> As if any more evidence that nuxx did make crank calls were needed he
> goes on to provide some more.
> Choking on his own poisonous bile.

Why on EARTH are you censoring links to public websites?  It really
does show how desperate URC regulars are to censor anything and
everything that they don't want to exist.  Quite amazing.

Oh, and needless to say, you're talking shit.

On Jul 23, 11:16 am, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message
>
> news:58c2184e-6edf-4d97-a673-96e2700b2327@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at <snipped>
>
> You are straying onto the wrong side of the law.  I recommend you quit this
> nonsense now.  I thoroughly disapprove of any incitement to harass other
> people.

I don't give a flying fuck what you "recommend".  You don't like it,
put me in your killfile.  Why do you think it's your place to
continually lecture me, and why do you think I care in the slightest
what you have to say?

You could do some good round here if you stuck to correcting the kind
of agenda-driven anti-motorist crap that we get round here under the
guise of "road safety" advocacy, instead of ordering around people
who, whether you like it or not, have much the same opinions as you do.

On Jul 23, 6:58 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:30:37 퍝, "mileburner"
>
>  wrote:
> >To err, save us from the continuous bile from judith and Nuxxy :-(
>
> But surely you realise, the problem is /everybody else/.

Not everybody else, just you, almost exclusively.

When are you going to admit that you made the "piece of shit" Lou Knee
post?  When are you going to admit that you hate motorists?  etc.

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:37:10 +0100, geomannie
<downiegeon0spam.co.uk@downie#n0sapm#.co.uk> wrote:

>In message , jms 
> writes
>>Hello Wanker:
>
>Uk.rec.cycling, moderated or not, is no big deal. Personally I like to 
>see amusing and interesting posts on cycling. Unfortunately, as we all 
>know, there is a lot of "noise" in this group. A proposal has been made 
>to set up a moderated group to filter out the noise. I'm agnostic. If 
>the moderated group works, I'll follow it. If not, uk.rec.cycling as 
>normal.
>
>What puzzles me is the appearance of jms  
>with his/her often abusive posts (viz. "Hello Wanker"). These posts only 
>started in May http://tinyurl.com/lmgevt and yet s/he professes the most 
>profound and heart-felt opposition to a moderated group. A strange 
>position for such a new-comer. jms professes to be a cyclist 
>http://tinyurl.com/l9rzbf but I have yet to see him/her make a post 
>regarding cycling. Furthermore s/he constantly attacks Guy Chapman who 
>makes frequent and relevant posts about cycling, also defending, not 
>always wisely, the status of cycling.
>
>So what gives?
>
>jms, are you sick, are you political, are you lonely? Why do you (only 
>recently) hate the idea of moderation so much? Personally, I think a 
>political motivation most likely because that is rational, albeit from a 
>rabid cycle-hating point of view. If however, you are sick, please see a 
>doctor. If you are lonely seek out some friends. If you are political, 
>then unfortunately you know exactly what you are doing.
>
>So, jms, how about a post about cycling? What bike(s) do you ride, where 
>do you go, when was your last near miss with a powered vehicle? That is 
>what the group is about, in its current incarnation or a possible future 
>moderated form.
>
>uk.rec.cycling.moderated, why not? It might work, it might not, but 
>there is no harm in its existence.

What's up, forgot the access password for Lou Knee?

On Jul 21, 3:48 pm, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "David Hansen"  wrote in message
>
> news:rb9b651kjlikl35r4ogvvpdccgt1pcfriv@4ax.com...
>
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:21:10 퍝 someone who may be "Clive George"
> >  wrote this:-
>
> >>Yay! - I was just beginning to wonder when this was going to happen.
>
> > Interestingly the original post has still not propagated to my
> > server, but the replies have.
>
> I haven't seen the Call For Votes message either on my news server.  Has it
> been cancelled?

Excuse me, I don't think you should have posted that, and I just know
you're interested in the fact that I think that.

jms wrote:

> You obviously do not understand this word "evidence".
> 
You obviously have an understanding of the word in its legal context only.

-- 
Roger Thorpe

Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:36:58 +0100, Roger Thorpe
 wrote:

>jms wrote:
>
>> You obviously do not understand this word "evidence".
>> 
>You obviously have an understanding of the word in its legal context only.

What?


Have you any evidence  or not?


(ffs - I can see this moderation lark is going to be interesting when
Roger's  on duty)


--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:30:34  
uk.rec.cycling jms 

Wm:
>>Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless?
>>(I haven't noticed anyone else supporting this sort of baseness)
>
>
>Have you seen me support it?

Yes (see unnm)

>I find it quite "base" when someone accuses you of doing something
>when they know it's just not true; what do you think?

You supported Nuxx.  You could, of course, say that you don't support 
him.  That would be interesting, wouldn't it?  It would mean you and 
Nuxx splitting, a divorce that I am sure many people will watch with 
amusement.

>No wonder you are known as Wanking Willie.

Other people have fantasised about my penis before you, dear.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:16:44 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:30:34  
>uk.rec.cycling jms 
>
>Wm:
>>>Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless?
>>>(I haven't noticed anyone else supporting this sort of baseness)
>>
>>
>>Have you seen me support it?
>
>Yes (see unnm)

Feel free to identify any post where you think I have supported the
making of malicious telephone calls to people  - which was the subject
of the discussion.

If you can't - an apology will suffice.

The point is "little Willie"  - if you start making unfounded
accusations like that, then it is you who has lost the plot - not the
subject of the unfounded accusation.

--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Jul 23, 9:10 pm, "Wm..." 
wrote:
> Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:54:28
> 
> uk.rec.cycling James 
>
> >On Jul 23, 10:59 am, "Wm..." 
> >wrote:
> >> Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:09:37
> >> 
> >> uk.rec.cycling Nuxx Bar 
>
> >> >Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at
>
> >> I am very uncomfortable with this sort of posting.
>
> >I look forward to the setting up of a moderated group where it would
> >not appear, still less be reposted and thereby escape killfiles.
>
> Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless?

If they do continue, it will only be in urc and not urcm, in which
case the former will die and the latter thrive.

James

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:57:31 -0700 (PDT), James
 wrote:

<snip>


>If they do continue, it will only be in urc and not urcm, in which
>case the former will die and the latter thrive.
>
>James


Why should we not be allowed to post in URCM - do you know something I
don't?

Has it all been decided?

Most odd.




--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:56:10  
uk.net.news.management jms 

>On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:16:44 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:30:34 
>>uk.rec.cycling jms 
>>
>>Wm:
>>>>Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless?
>>>>(I haven't noticed anyone else supporting this sort of baseness)
>>>
>>>
>>>Have you seen me support it?
>>
>>Yes (see unnm)
>
>Feel free to identify any post where you think I have supported the
>making of malicious telephone calls to people  - which was the subject
>of the discussion.

I have done so, see unnm.

>The point is "little Willie"  - if you start making unfounded
>accusations like that, then it is you who has lost the plot - not the
>subject of the unfounded accusation.

You seem unusually interested in my penis.  The usual unn.* recourse is 
"pic! pic!"

I don't mind posting a pic of my penis if the group as a whole wants to 
see one.  Bluff called?  Show us your vagina, Judith :)

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:10:13  
uk.rec.cycling jms 

>Why should we not be allowed to post in URCM - do you know something I
>don't?

Yes

>Has it all been decided?

No

>Most odd.

Not really.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:57:31 
 
uk.rec.cycling James 

Wm:
>> Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless?
>
>If they do continue, it will only be in urc and not urcm, in which
>case the former will die and the latter thrive.

My perception is that Judith and Nuxx are making last grabs and in doing 
so becoming very unpleasant people for all to see.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Jul 24, 7:48 am, "Wm..." 
wrote:
> Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:57:31
> 
> uk.rec.cycling James 
>
> Wm:
>
> >> Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless?
>
> >If they do continue, it will only be in urc and not urcm, in which
> >case the former will die and the latter thrive.
>
> My perception is that Judith and Nuxx are making last grabs and in doing
> so becoming very unpleasant people for all to see.

My perception is that they have been very unpleasant for all to see
for a long time, but it has taken some people almost as long to
realise it!

James

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

> Astonishing how "I" managed to post from Nuxx's ISP, isn't it?  Tut
> tut, header forgery.  You can get ToSd for that, you know.

You can also get TOSsed for libel, and for forging the contents of
posts.

jms wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:36:58 +0100, Roger Thorpe
>  wrote:
> 
>> jms wrote:
>>
>>> You obviously do not understand this word "evidence".
>>>
>> You obviously have an understanding of the word in its legal context only.
> 
> What?

In the world outside the legal environment, and especially in the 
scientific world no evidence is conclusive.
Guy mentioned that the caller accused him of being a 'murderer'
Nuxx has done the same and worse in this ng many times
Nuxx has posted details of Guy and has implied that he knows the 
registration numbers of cars used by his family.
Nuxx has demonstrated a dangerous obsessional hatred of Guy.
Nuxx seems to be delusional and unstable.

No, it's not conclusive. Guy could have lied or the caller might have 
been someone pretending to be Nuxx.
On the whole the conclusion that I have come to is that I believe Nuxx 
made the calls. I could be wrong, but based on that evidence this is 
what I believe.

There's another weirdo who posts links to pictures of guy. That one 
seems to be going down the Nuxxy road these days.

-- 
Roger Thorpe

...you had the whole damn thing all wrong/
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:44:05 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

<snip>


>>>>Have you seen me support it?
>>>
>>>Yes (see unnm)
>>
>>Feel free to identify any post where you think I have supported the
>>making of malicious telephone calls to people  - which was the subject
>>of the discussion.
>
>I have done so, see unnm.


Where you purely referenced the post I made when I said:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see he sent his request by email - I trust that
foi@cambs.pnn.police.uk don't use a Microsoft system as they may have
just binned it.


(I think that's  how these systems work ;-)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I repeat - feel free to identify any post where you think I have
supported the making of malicious telephone calls to people  - which
was the subject of the discussion.

I have not given any such support to such activities.  I do not
support the making of malicious phone calls.

You however have said I that I have.

To accuse someone of saying they support the making of malicious phone
calls is  appalling in itself

Feel free to quote what I said which you think means I support
malicious phone calls. 

Alternatively, you could just withdraw the accusation and apologise.

For the avoidance of doubt : you are a liar.

--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:48:12 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:57:31 
> 
>uk.rec.cycling James 
>
>Wm:
>>> Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless?
>>
>>If they do continue, it will only be in urc and not urcm, in which
>>case the former will die and the latter thrive.
>
>My perception is that Judith and Nuxx are making last grabs and in doing 
>so becoming very unpleasant people for all to see.


You mean like accusing people of supporting the use of malicious phone
calls.

Oh  no - that was you who did that wasn't it.

What did you say about people being "very unpleasant"? 

Feel free to apologise  - or don't bother if you just want to be seen
as a barefaced liar.
--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:31:37 +0100, Roger Thorpe
 wrote:

<snip>


>On the whole the conclusion that I have come to is that I believe Nuxx 
>made the calls. I could be wrong, but based on that evidence this is 
>what I believe.


Good - so there is actually no evidence whatsoever that he made the
calls - just that you think he did from things he has subsequently
said.

Well that's cleared that up nicely.


--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

jms wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:31:37 +0100, Roger Thorpe
>  wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
>> On the whole the conclusion that I have come to is that I believe Nuxx 
>> made the calls. I could be wrong, but based on that evidence this is 
>> what I believe.
> 
> 
> Good - so there is actually no evidence whatsoever that he made the
> calls - just that you think he did from things he has subsequently
> said.

Do you think that he didn't?
-- 
Roger Thorpe

...you had the whole damn thing all wrong/
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:55:05  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:48:12 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
>>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:57:31
>>
>>uk.rec.cycling James 
>>
>>Wm:
>>>> Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless?
>>>
>>>If they do continue, it will only be in urc and not urcm, in which
>>>case the former will die and the latter thrive.
>>
>>My perception is that Judith and Nuxx are making last grabs and in doing
>>so becoming very unpleasant people for all to see.
>
>
>You mean like accusing people of supporting the use of malicious phone
>calls.

Yes.  You could have condemned Nuxx but chose not to.

>Feel free to apologise  - or don't bother if you just want to be seen
>as a barefaced liar.

I may not be liked by all but I don't think my honesty is in question.

Yours is.

As you kindly quoted
===
My perception is that Judith and Nuxx are making last grabs and in doing
so becoming very unpleasant people for all to see.
===

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:40:32  
uk.net.news.management jms 

>On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:44:05 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>>>>Have you seen me support it?
>>>>
>>>>Yes (see unnm)
>>>
>>>Feel free to identify any post where you think I have supported the
>>>making of malicious telephone calls to people  - which was the subject
>>>of the discussion.
>>
>>I have done so, see unnm.
>
>
>Where you purely referenced the post I made when I said:
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------------------------------------------
>I see he sent his request by email - I trust that
>foi@cambs.pnn.police.uk don't use a Microsoft system as they may have
>just binned it.
>
>
>(I think that's  how these systems work ;-)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>--------------------------------------------

You're not very good at context.  Everyone except you thought Nuxx did a 
bad thing.

>I repeat - feel free to identify any post where you think I have
>supported the making of malicious telephone calls to people  - which
>was the subject of the discussion.

Let us know when you disassociate your self from Nuxx.

If you dissociate yourself from him we may be able to have a 
conversation.

>I have not given any such support to such activities.  I do not
>support the making of malicious phone calls.
>
>You however have said I that I have.

Yes, because you are the only person that didn't condemn Nuxx.

You are free to sue me.

>To accuse someone of saying they support the making of malicious phone
>calls is  appalling in itself

Yes, I did it knowingly.

You are free to sue me.

>Feel free to quote what I said which you think means I support
>malicious phone calls.

You did not condemn Nuxx.

>Alternatively, you could just withdraw the accusation and apologise.

Nope.

>For the avoidance of doubt : you are a liar.

I have a record of what has been said.  Take it to a court and who lied 
about what will soon become clear.  Your statements hold no weight as 
you have chosen to be an unidentifiable person.

I'm unlikely to meet a woman named Judith in a court after all.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:40:32 +0100, jms put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:44:05 +0100, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>
>>>>>Have you seen me support it?
>>>>
>>>>Yes (see unnm)
>>>
>>>Feel free to identify any post where you think I have supported the
>>>making of malicious telephone calls to people  - which was the subject
>>>of the discussion.
>>
>>I have done so, see unnm.
>
>
>Where you purely referenced the post I made when I said:
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I see he sent his request by email - I trust that
>foi@cambs.pnn.police.uk don't use a Microsoft system as they may have
>just binned it.
>
>
>(I think that's  how these systems work ;-)
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was in response to a post by Nuxx Bar in which he explicitly
encouraged the making of malicious telephone calls. You could have
snipped the section where he gave the necessary information, but you
chose not to and didn't make any comment which indicated that you
disagreed with Nuxx. So it's not unreasonable to assume that you
supported his suggestion, especially since the two of you generally
agree on everything else related to the creation of the proposed
group.

If that's an incorrect assumption, and you do, in fact, disagree with
Nuxx, then it would help if you could make that clear. All you need to
do is make a statement in which you explicitly express your
condemnation of Nuxx's suggestion, and apologise for quoting it in a
way which could be seen to endorse it, and I'm sure we'll all be happy
to take you at your word.

Mark
-- 
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:11:27 +0100, Roger Thorpe
 wrote:

>> Good - so there is actually no evidence whatsoever that he made the
>> calls - just that you think he did from things he has subsequently
>> said.

>Do you think that he didn't?

Also, you, Roger, are not privy to all the evidence.  Some of it I
choose not to share for reasons which have been discussed before.

Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:11:27 
<h4c4t2$5c4$1@corncockle-nntp.csv.warwick.ac.uk> uk.rec.cycling Roger 
Thorpe 

>jms wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:31:37 +0100, Roger Thorpe
>>  wrote:
>>  <snip>
>>
>>> On the whole the conclusion that I have come to is that I believe 
>>>Nuxx  made the calls. I could be wrong, but based on that evidence 
>>>this is  what I believe.
>>   Good - so there is actually no evidence whatsoever that he made the
>> calls - just that you think he did from things he has subsequently
>> said.
>
>Do you think that he didn't?

Isn't the interesting bit this: everyone *except* judith has condemned 
Nuxx.

If one clearly divorced the other we'd know which was the bad one (sort 
of).

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> On Jul 23, 6:58 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>  wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:30:37 +0100, "mileburner"
>>
>>  wrote:
>>> To err, save us from the continuous bile from judith and Nuxxy :-(
>> But surely you realise, the problem is /everybody else/.
> 
> Not everybody else, just you, almost exclusively.
> 
> When are you going to admit that you made the "piece of shit" Lou Knee
> post?  When are you going to admit that you hate motorists?  etc.

You know, I was actually quite strongly against a moderated
group, but you've finally convinced me.

   BugBear

"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message 
news:cdOdnfSXRJhkPfTXnZ2dnUVZ8l9i4p2d@brightview.co.uk...
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
>> On Jul 23, 6:58 pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>  wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:30:37 +0100, "mileburner"
>>>
>>>  wrote:
>>>> To err, save us from the continuous bile from judith and Nuxxy :-(
>>> But surely you realise, the problem is /everybody else/.
>>
>> Not everybody else, just you, almost exclusively.
>>
>> When are you going to admit that you made the "piece of shit" Lou Knee
>> post?  When are you going to admit that you hate motorists?  etc.
>
> You know, I was actually quite strongly against a moderated
> group, but you've finally convinced me.

Just put him in your killfile if you find him annoying.  I have't put Nuxx 
in mine because I find him entertaining in the same way I find spindrift 
entertaining.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:15:54 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:55:05  
>uk.net.news.config jms 
>
>>On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:48:12 +0100, "Wm..."
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:57:31
>>>
>>>uk.rec.cycling James 
>>>
>>>Wm:
>>>>> Do you think people like Nuxx and Judith will not continue regardless?
>>>>
>>>>If they do continue, it will only be in urc and not urcm, in which
>>>>case the former will die and the latter thrive.
>>>
>>>My perception is that Judith and Nuxx are making last grabs and in doing
>>>so becoming very unpleasant people for all to see.
>>
>>
>>You mean like accusing people of supporting the use of malicious phone
>>calls.
>
>Yes.  You could have condemned Nuxx but chose not to.

Did you condemn him?  I missed it.



>>Feel free to apologise  - or don't bother if you just want to be seen
>>as a barefaced liar.
>
>I may not be liked by all but I don't think my honesty is in question.
>
>Yours is.


How can your honesty not be doubted when you say:  "Yes, I did it
knowingly."

-  in response to an accusation that you had accused me of supporting
the making of malicious phone-calls when I hadn't. 

What about when you implied that my vote would not be counted because
of the e-mail address I used.  You know that that was not true.

Sounds like you are an inherently dishonest person to me.

Feel free to point out over what points you are querying my honesty.

You may not like what I say - but I do not believe that I am
dishonest.

Here you go:  I think that you are worse than a piece of dog-shit.

Now that is quite honest.


--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:11:27 +0100, Roger Thorpe
 wrote:

>jms wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:31:37 +0100, Roger Thorpe
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> 
>>> On the whole the conclusion that I have come to is that I believe Nuxx 
>>> made the calls. I could be wrong, but based on that evidence this is 
>>> what I believe.
>> 
>> 
>> Good - so there is actually no evidence whatsoever that he made the
>> calls - just that you think he did from things he has subsequently
>> said.
>
>Do you think that he didn't?


I have no view as to whether he, you, or anyone else did or did not.

I do not even know if any calls were made.

Chapman has lied before - he could easily be lying again.

It is interesting that people would rather believe Chapman than look
at the alternative (eg the Lou Knee scenario ) which would mean that
he is an out and out liar.

URC people do not want to believe that for some reason.

--       

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

jms wrote:
> I have no view as to whether he, you, or anyone else did or did not.
> 
> I do not even know if any calls were made.
> 
> Chapman has lied before - he could easily be lying again.
> 
> It is interesting that people would rather believe Chapman than look
> at the alternative (eg the Lou Knee scenario ) which would mean that
> he is an out and out liar.

You give the impression that you care deeply about the Lou Knee 
incident, but very little about the publication of material to identify 
individuals, forged posts, harassing 'phone calls and allegations of 
paedophilia.
That's a strange set of values.

I can't understand why you don't disown your pet monkey completely. He's 
not doing you any favours.

-- 
Roger Thorpe

...you had the whole damn thing all wrong/
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...

Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:51:55  
uk.net.news.config jms 

>Did you condemn him?  I missed it.

For the avoidance of doubt: I condemn Nuxx


Your turn now.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

FIRST CALL FOR VOTES (OF 2)

Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Votes must be received by 23:59:59 BST, 7th August 2009.

Please note that all email addresses other than the ballot 
request address are spamtrapped or munged. Addresses on the 
ballot paper are unaltered, in accordance with standard
practice. Please take extreme care, therefore, with the ballot
paper that you receive and ensure that it is not stored in the
mail spool of a virus-infected PC.

For voting questions and queries contact
Votetaker: Pedt Scragg 
           <query (at) fairfieldtowers (dot) net>

For questions about the proposed new newsgroup please contact the
proponent.

Proponent : Ian Jackson 
            <ijackson (at) chiark (dot) greenend (dot) org (dot) uk

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

Distribution:

This CFV has been posted to the following newsgroups:

uk.net.news.announce
uk.net.news.config
uk.rec.cycling

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

This CFV contains the following sections.

1. Rationale
2. Summary of Discussion from the Proponent
3. Changes from the last RFD from the Proponent
4. Initial Moderation Policy
5. Newsgroups line
6. Charter
7. Standard Voting Instructions
8. Instructions on how to obtain a ballot paper and template

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

RATIONALE 

uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from trolling,
nym-shifting and forgeries.  Many of these posts are abusive and
hostile to cycling.  Repetitive flamage now constitutes 50-75% of 
the group by number of articles.  This ongoing and worsening problem 
has been making the group nearly unuseable for ordinary discussion; 
many posters have already left.

I therefore propose that we should create:

uk.rec.cycling.moderated

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

PROPONENT's Summary of Discussion

This CFV (and the 2nd RFD, which was almost identical) is the 
result of major changes made to the 1st RFD following extensive 1st 
RFD discussion.  The current proposal is much shorter and simpler 
than the 1st RFD and and has a much more light-touch moderation 
policy.

Following the 2nd RFD there was once more an extensive and wide
ranging discussion.  Unfortunately, of the >1400 articles, a 
majority were personal abuse and off-topic ranting.  However, there 
were also some important and relevant points.

At least 31 people posted to say that they were in favour of the
proposal and would like to see it enacted; some of these were 
departed posters from urc who said they would return to use the new 
group.

Many specific questions were asked about the moderators' views 
about various kinds of moderation decision.  One proposed moderator 
reviewed a period of posts to uk.rec.cycling and posted a list of 
messages they would have approved.

Questions were asked and about my technical facilities and skills
as proposed moderation systems host; additionally the operator of
moderation.org.uk kindly volunteered to help with the hosting.

Some people objected to moderation in principle, and/or raised more
detailed objections.  While these objections were strongly expressed
and vigorously pursued often at length, they came from only a handful
of posters and in my view were not supported more generally.

The method by which the moderators were selected was again examined 
in some detail.  It was suggested that the moderators should be
individually elected.  This would be an unusual practice for a
moderated group and in my view raises at least as many problems as it
solves.  The discussion consensus was in favour of the usual approach
(which is to vote on the moderation panel as a whole, and thereafter
have the moderators appoint their successors).

The question of the crossposting policy was once again discussed at
length.  Even amonst more experienced participants in the discussion
there was no clear consensus on whether the moderation policy should
absolutely ban all crossposting.  I have chosen to retain the existing
wording as this will be more truthful (for example, appropriate usenet
management announcements such as RFDs will be permitted the new
moderated group).  The moderators made it clear that they intend to
ban crossposing to uk.rec.cycling and of course crossposted trolling.

There was extensive discussion of the appeal and escalation options
and processes available to people who disagree with moderation
decisions; the answers did not appear to satisfy the objectors.

There was much discussion of the exact status of .signatures,
particularly .sigs containing inflammatory statements (which have been
a problematic feature in urc).  The moderators indicated that messages
with flamebait in the .sig would be rejected.  A few posters objected
and complained that this wasn't spelled out in the moderation policy.

Some other objections I rejected:  The moderation panel was a clique.
The encouragement of `General discussion amongst UK cyclists' was
purely there to allow the clique to post whatever they liked.  The
point was to let people be nasty to trolls without letting trolls
reply.  Permitting limited discussion of the moderation policy in 
the group itself would surely spell doom for the new group.  The
moderators should not blacklist persistent offenders or should only 
do so with reference to some formal procedure.  Crossposting was not
being 100% ruled out because the plan was to crosspost trolling rants
in hostile newsgroups.  Moderation decisions should be governed by
published procedures to ensure consistency.  The failure of
uk.local.yorkshire.moderated demonstrated that creating a moderated
newsgroup could not solve a noise problem.  uk.rec.cycling had been
much better recently so it would be better to wait six months and see
if moderation was still needed then.

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

CHANGES from the last RFD

Banning `obscenity' gave the impression that cursing would not be
permitted, despite the general view (as in the previous discussion)
that it should be allowed.  `Obscenity' was also thought rather 
vague. There being no reason to retain it, The moderation policy 
has been altered to remove `obscenity' from the list of things 
prohibited.

Asking posters to uk.rec.cycling to `switch' to the new group was 
felt by some to be inappropriate. The moderation policy now speaks
of 'inviting posters and readers' without suggesting that they 
should abandon the unmoderated group.

The rationale previously referred to telephone harassment suffered 
by a poster to uk.rec.cycling.  This didn't add anything to the 
proposal and was needlessly controversial so, following suggestions 
in the discussion, this has been removed.

There are no changes to the charter or moderator panel.

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

INITIAL MODERATION POLICY

The following are on-topic and encouraged:
 * Discussions regarding cycling within the UK;
 * Discussion on cycling more generally, but which retains a focus
   on cycling within the UK;
 * General discussion amongst UK cyclists;
 * Announcements of specific interest to UK cyclists.

The following are prohibited:
 * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
 * Personal abuse; flames;
 * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
   discussion.

Crossposting is at present generally not permitted.
Brief and constructive discussion of the moderation policy is
permitted in the newsgroup itself.


The moderators operate a passlist system, so that messages from
regular on-topic posters can be posted promptly and automatically.
Threads which have descended into repetition or abuse may be closed by
the moderators.

Decisions by individual moderators to approve or reject a posting, or
to close a thread, may be appealed by private email to the whole
moderation panel.

This policy may be updated by the moderation panel as they see fit.

The moderators can be reached at
  urcm-moderators@chiark.greenend.org.uk
  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/urcm/

A summary of approved and rejected posts is available on the website.

The moderators will make a regular posting to uk.rec.cycling,
advertising the moderated group and inviting readers and posters.

Moderators:

  Alan Braggins
  Andy Leighton
  Danny Colyer
  David Damerell
  Ian Jackson
  Martin Dann
  Nigel Cliffe
  Peter Clinch
  Peter Fox
  Roger Thorpe
  Simon Brooke

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

NEWSGROUPS LINE

uk.rec.cycling.moderated              Cycling in the UK (Moderated)

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

CHARTER: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

This group is for the discussion of all matters relating to cycling
and the UK.  Recreational cycling, cycling for transport, racing, and
other forms of cycling are all on-topic.

Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil,
pleasant, and of interest to cyclists.

The moderators may use whatever tools and processes they collectively
feel appropriate to ensure the smooth running of the group.


Binaries and Formatting

Encoded binaries (eg pictures, compressed files, etc.) are
forbidden. Such material belongs on a web or FTP site to which a
pointer may be posted.  Cryptographic signatures (eg PGP) may be used
where authentication is important and should be as short as possible.

Posts must be readable as plain text.  HTML, RTF and similarly
formatted messages are prohibited.  To see how to make some common
news readers comply with this, read  
http://www.usenet.org.uk/ukpost.html

END CHARTER

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

VOTING INSTRUCTIONS

If you fail to follow the instructions below your ballot paper may
be ruled invalid. This means your vote will not be counted.

1) One person, one vote.

2) No two voters may vote from the same email address.
   In the event that only one address is available to two persons
   who both wish to vote, both these persons should contact the
   votetaker prior to voting.

3) Votes must be emailed directly from the voter to the address
   specified by the votetaker.

4) There may be technical reasons, such as breaks in the email
   headers of your ballot, which may mean that the votetaker is
   unable to confirm the validity of your vote. The votetaker
   will contact you if there are any irregularities.

If you have followed the voting instructions correctly, you will
receive an acknowledgement of your vote within five days from the
votetaker.
This does not always mean that your vote is valid. The votetaker
will contact you if there is a problem with your vote.

If you do not receive an acknowledgement of receipt of your ballot
paper within five days you should contact the votetaker.

If the acknowledgement "bounces" back to the votetaker (the mail
containing the acknowledgment is returned as undeliverable by a
mailserver), your vote will not be counted.

It is your responsibility to ensure that your ballot paper has been
received by checking that the acknowledgement arrives. You should
also check that your vote is recorded correctly in the
acknowledgement. If there are any problems with your
acknowledgement, you should contact the votetaker.

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

HOW TO VOTE

This vote is being run with a voting system which was introduced
in January 2003, so if you haven't voted since then this is going
to be new to you.

Please read the instructions carefully.

Under this new system, the email address that will be published in
the results is the one that the ballot paper was sent to. So for
example if a ballot paper was sent to example-voter@ukvoting.org.uk,
this would be the address shown in the result. This address has to
be valid, otherwise you will not receive a ballot paper.

To receive a ballot paper, you must send an email to the Ballot
Request Address, which is xurcm <at> request.ukvoting.org.uk.

For most news-reading software, just replying by email to this post
will address your email correctly, but *please check* that the
address above is actually in the To field before you send the mail.

We recognise that sometimes people submit their votes from
different addresses for varying reasons, especially when more than
one email address is available to a voter. If you want the results
to record your vote as coming from a different address to that
from which you post your request, you can do this by putting the
address you want recorded in the Reply-To field in your ballot
request. If you do not know how to do this, or if you are unable
for whatever reason, then put the address you want recorded in the
Subject line of your ballot request instead.

Note: Please remember that you must be able to read email sent to
the address you choose to use as your voting address, otherwise you
will be unable to retrieve your ballot paper and you will be unable
to vote.

If you change the Subject field in your email to contain the
address you want to use, it doesn't matter whether you also include
your name or not, and it doesn't matter whether you enclose your
voting address in <angle brackets> or not.

It also doesn't matter whether you quote this entire post or
delete everything when making your ballot request.

THE REPLY TO YOUR REQUEST

If the autoresponder understands your voting address in the Subject
or other fields, it will send a ballot paper immediately to that
address. This ballot paper will be personalised and unique to the
voting address used.

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

CASTING YOUR VOTE

Your personalised ballot paper will contain a ballot ID and will
have your voting address prefilled for your convenience.

Do not change either of these or your vote will not be valid. If
you want to use a different voting address you must request
another ballot paper for the new address.

1) Enter the name under which you want your vote recorded in the
   results. This must be either your real name or the pseudonym
   ("handle") which you normally use to post to usenet.

2) Enter the email address which you normally use to post to
   Usenet, including the spamblock if applicable. If you use a
   number of different email addresses, please give the most
   recent, a typical or the most commonly used address. If, and
   only if, you do not post to Usenet, enter the word "none".
   Please do not enter any text in this field other than your
   posting address or the word "none". If you have any doubt as
   to how to complete this section, please contact the votetaker.

   This section is recommended but optional and is to help the
   votetaker verify your vote. If you do not answer this question,
   and the votetaker cannot verify your identity from the other
   information on the ballot, then the votetaker will need to
   carry out further investigations which may include contacting
   you for additional information. If you are unable or unwilling
   to provide such information if requested, your vote might not
   be counted.

3) Mark your voting preferences, as indicated on the ballot
   according to the instructions below.

4) Send your vote.

This vote is being conducted under the Yes/No procedure.

This vote requires a simple 'yes', 'no' response as you wish

The letters Y/N may be used if you prefer.

You may abstain, and have your abstention recorded in the results,
by filling in one or more of the voting boxes [ ] with A or
ABSTAIN. Similarly if you wish to Cancel a vote and have no record
in the results, use C or CANCEL on your ballot paper, and resubmit
it.

You may resubmit your ballot, with different choices, at any time
up to the close of the vote. Your identification details on the
resubmitted ballot paper must be the same as earlier ones.
Repeat votes will be resolved in favour of the last valid ballot
paper.

The purpose of this vote is to determine the genuine interest of
persons who would read the proposed newsgroup.

Soliciting votes from disinterested parties defeats this purpose.
Under no circumstances should you post your completed ballot paper
to any Usenet/Net News newsgroup or other forum.

If you ignore any of these instructions, your vote may be rejected
as invalid. This includes, but is not limited to, any false answers
given on the ballot paper or any attempt to circumvent the "one
person, one vote" rule or to conceal your identity.

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF YOUR BALLOT PAPER

The votetaker will send you an acknowledgement so that you know
that your ballot paper has been received. This may take up to five
days.

If you have not received such an acknowledgement after five days,
then contact the votetaker directly at the following address:
query (at) fairfieldtowers (dot) net

An acknowledgement does not necessarily mean that your vote will be
counted.

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

VOTE VALIDATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY

The acknowledgement which you receive (see above) will contain
details of how you voted. Check this acknowledgement carefully. If
there are any problems, or you did not vote then contact the
votetaker straight away.

During or at the end of the vote, the votetaker will validate every
vote submitted, and the votetaker may need to contact you
concerning any problem or query. You must assist the votetaker's
reasonable efforts to clarify any problem or query with regard to
your vote otherwise your vote may not be counted. Any communication
between the votetaker and yourself must not be considered to be
confidential and the votetaker reserves the right to publish any
information that the votetaker deems relevant to the vote
within the results post.

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

RESULTS

The names, addresses and vote preferences of all valid and invalid
votes will be published in the results, which are posted to
uk.net.news.announce.

All published email addresses will be scrambled to prevent them
being harvested by spammers.

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

The ballot paper will contain the following question(s).

The question(s) are shown below so that you know what you will
be asked on the ballot paper. You cannot use this to vote,
you must request a ballot paper.

Create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated?

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

TROUBLESHOOTING

If you have any problems whatsoever with this process, contact the
votetaker directly at query <at> fairfieldtowers (dot) net

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

VOTING AND APPEAL GUIDELINES

This vote was conducted by neutral third party members of UKVoting.
UKVoting is a group of independent votetakers who count votes on
CFVs in the uk hierarchy.  The rules under which this vote is taken
are posted regularly to uk.net.news.announce or can be found at the
following URL:

ftp://sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk/usenet/news-info/news.answers/uk/voting>

The UKVoting web pages can be found at <http://www.ukvoting.org.uk/>

Nuxx Bar  wrote in news:56649370-1ed7-412c-
954c-51d6ef8b47d3@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 23, 11:16 am, "Mr Benn" <nos...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> "Nuxx Bar"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:58c2184e-6edf-4d97-a673-96e2700b2327@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >Oh look.  Jackson's posted his postal address at <snipped>
>>
>> You are straying onto the wrong side of the law.  I recommend you quit 
> this
>> nonsense now.  I thoroughly disapprove of any incitement to harass othe
> r
>> people.
> 
> I don't give a flying fuck what you "recommend".  You don't like it,
> put me in your killfile.  Why do you think it's your place to
> continually lecture me, and why do you think I care in the slightest
> what you have to say?

Are you happy to tell us your full name, address and telephone number?  Of 
course not.  You are disliked almost as much as Chapman.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:25:16 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:21:10 +0100 someone who may be "Clive George"
> wrote this:-
>
>>Yay! - I was just beginning to wonder when this was going to happen. 
>
>Interestingly the original post has still not propagated to my
>server, but the replies have.

Same here.  It's not down to crossposting filters either.

-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
[Reply-to address valid until it is spammed.]