In uk.net.news.config, "Just zis Guy, you know?" 
wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:32:59 +0100, "Anthony R. Gold"
> wrote:
>
>>Back in the era of RFC977 I guess most people thought of plain text as
>>being 7 bit ASCII.  But now, with regional character sets and the need for
>>an 8 bit transport, text ain't nearly as plain as it once was.
>
>Fair point.
>
>>IMO a rule to prohibit html should say exactly that.
>
>Just so.  How hard is that, exactly?

It's easy.  What you do is you submit an RFD if you believe strongly enough
that it requires changing.

Arguing the toss with the committee or anyone else will have no effect
what-so-ever.

If you don't think it's worth submitting an RFD over, it's not worth
arguing over either.

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:09:42 +0100, Tony 
wrote:

>>>IMO a rule to prohibit html should say exactly that.
>>Just so.  How hard is that, exactly?
>It's easy.  What you do is you submit an RFD if you believe strongly enough
>that it requires changing.
>Arguing the toss with the committee or anyone else will have no effect
>what-so-ever.

And?  The point was, if you want a rule for no HTML, how hard is it to
write one?  Not hard.  Getting it put into practice may well be
challenging, but /writing/ it does not sound like rocket surgery.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

In uk.net.news.config, "Just zis Guy, you know?" 
wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:09:42 +0100, Tony 
>wrote:
>
>>>>IMO a rule to prohibit html should say exactly that.
>>>Just so.  How hard is that, exactly?
>>It's easy.  What you do is you submit an RFD if you believe strongly enough
>>that it requires changing.
>>Arguing the toss with the committee or anyone else will have no effect
>>what-so-ever.

>And?  The point was, if you want a rule for no HTML, how hard is it to
>write one?  Not hard.  Getting it put into practice may well be
>challenging, but /writing/ it does not sound like rocket surgery.

Who wants the rule?

Who's asking for change?

-- 
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog -> http://perceptionistruth.com/
olmr -> http://www.onelinemoviereviews.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

Quoting  Tony  :
>It's easy.  What you do is you submit an RFD if you believe strongly enough
>that it requires changing.

Could do. Of course, there might be a group mandated to "ensure that the
rules for group creation are documented, followed and applied" already,
but apparently the Committee has more important things to do, like trying
to stop the RFD for uk.foo.bar.moderated being posted to uk.foo.bar.
-- 
David Damerell  Distortion Field!
Yesterday was First Brieday, September.
Today is First Gouday, September.
Tomorrow will be First Chedday, September - a public holiday.

Quoting  Tony  :
>In uk.net.news.config, David Damerell 
>>Could do. Of course, there might be a group mandated to "ensure that the
>>rules for group creation are documented, followed and applied" already,
>>but apparently the Committee has more important things to do, like trying
>>to stop the RFD for uk.foo.bar.moderated being posted to uk.foo.bar.
>You think something should be clearer.

I think something should be documented.

>The committee don't appear to agree.

Because, in spite of the fact that they are mandated to ensure that the
rules are documented, they instead see their role as telling people to
"fuck off" and so forth.

>Your approach is to continue badgering the committee.

"Continue"? The quoted text is the first time I have mentioned that the
committee's responsibility is to ensure the rules are documented.

Obviously if they choose to continue to ignore their responsibilities I
may submit an RFD myself.
-- 
David Damerell  Oil is for sissies
Yesterday was First Gouday, September.
Today is First Chedday, September - a public holiday.
Tomorrow will be First Stilday, September - a weekend.

On 01 Oct 2009 16:56:09 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>>You think something should be clearer.
>
>I think something should be documented.
>
>>The committee don't appear to agree.

The committee has not commented.
>
>Because, in spite of the fact that they are mandated to ensure that the
>rules are documented, they instead see their role as telling people to
>"fuck off" and so forth.
See above.  Individuals may have done so. Richard doesn't get in here
much these days so someone has to keep up the good work.
>
>>Your approach is to continue badgering the committee.
>
>"Continue"? The quoted text is the first time I have mentioned that the
>committee's responsibility is to ensure the rules are documented.

Are the rules not documented?
>
>Obviously if they choose to continue to ignore their responsibilities I
>may submit an RFD myself.

That will be interesting.
-- 
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker

.m  wrote:

> Now, I'll just refer you to my last comment to the twat Jackson.

Well said. I know back when this all started (I mean back at the first
public view of the RFD) there were regulars who thought that I was being
harsh or unfair in my responses to the psycholists. I can see that the
barking mad nature of that group has now been communicated by the
individuals themselves to the level where further comment would be
pointless.

FWIW, jackson had impartial comment from the outset but decided that the
best way to proceed was to have an out of pram experince with Teddy and
the teething ring. I had realised that committee members had also tried
to help then had it thrown back in their face.

Geoff Berrow  wrote:

> Out of interest I just downloaded the latest 100 headers from urc.
> 
> Not much evidence of a troll problem now,

They're all busy trolling each other in unnc and unnm at present. It
does seem to show, however, that the cause of the "troll" problem was
entirely the responsibility of Jackson, Dammerell, Smith and Chapman and
that while they have been distracted life has got back to normal.

`I expect more vituperation from Dammerell at this point, though he may
care to pause and think before hitting the keyboard for once in his
natural.

Geoff Berrow  wrote:

> >The intention was to be helpful. In the light of the proponent's
> >behaviour subsequently, I wish we had been obstructive. I've half a
> >mind to RFD the group's removal, now.
> 
> 
> Out of interest I just downloaded the latest 100 headers from urc.
> 
> Not much evidence of a troll problem now, so perhaps you'd better keep
> that RFD handy.

Oh, Lord, you must be joking.

Almost every thread has a contribution attempting to pick a fight - and
as often as not that earns a response from each of several others who
think they are 'defending' the group.

Then we get idiot crossposters, either from without (say, the likes of
Steve Firth) or within (those 'defenders' once again), both of whom
apparently actually believe they're not trolling.

A large number of all threads degenerate into a "motorists are victims!
cyclists are villains!/motorists are villains! cyclists are victims!"
exchange (one couldn't call it a debate) - and again, this is only
possible because willing participants can be found for both sides.

So it's hard to see how 'the trolls', however annoying they are, can be
held solely responsible for the group's woes.

Occasionally, there will indeed be some discussion of cycling or
bicycles. When it appears, it is what it ought to be. There's no
shortage of useful and worthwhile discussion to be had.

Hopefully the new moderated group will be like that, but it will achieve
this not simply by keeping out the trolls and the idiot crossposters,
but also by maintaining the discipline that some of its nest-fouling
readers aren't able to manage for themselves, by themselves.

It's a bit pathetic. I voted in favour of the new group, it should not -
even taking into account those deliberately trying to cause trouble -
have been necessary.

Daniele

D.M. Procida  wrote:

> Then we get idiot crossposters, either from without (say, the likes of
> Steve Firth) or within (those 'defenders' once again), both of whom
> apparently actually believe they're not trolling.

So is this peevish attack on me by you not trolling? And if you're
aleging that I'm a habitual cross poster or even that I start
cross-posted flamewars I'll point out that you're a liar.

What your outburst indicates is that you consider that I should never be
permitted to post in urc. Ah, <sniff> censorship and hypocrisy, what a
fine smell they make.

Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> > Then we get idiot crossposters, either from without (say, the likes of
> > Steve Firth) or within (those 'defenders' once again), both of whom
> > apparently actually believe they're not trolling.
> 
> So is this peevish attack on me by you not trolling? And if you're
> aleging that I'm a habitual cross poster or even that I start
> cross-posted flamewars I'll point out that you're a liar.

I'm alleging mainly that you're a twerp. 

You are a silly little man who has nothing better to do with his time
than to stir up trouble on newsgroups he doesn't even read.

In case you have forgotten doing it, by the way, you have crossposted to
uk.rec.cycling hundreds of times in the last few months, almost
invariably to spew your mouth off on the subject of cyclists.

> What your outburst indicates is that you consider that I should never be
> permitted to post in urc. Ah, <sniff> censorship and hypocrisy, what a
> fine smell they make.

You can post where you like, and to moderated newsgroups too, if you can
learn not to make a nuisance of yourself. But in your usual mode it's
like having a dysfunctional attention-seeking adolescent around when the
adults are trying to have a conversation.

Daniele

On 11/10/2009 04:41, Steve Firth wrote:
> So is this peevish attack on me by you not trolling? And if you're
> aleging that I'm a habitual cross poster or even that I start
> cross-posted flamewars I'll point out that you're a liar.

A few seconds searching finds:

13/07/09, thread header '"Have you got a fiver for petrol" scammer 
caught on film'.  The first cross-post was by Steve Firth.

23/07/09. thread header "Duhg, is that you?".  Cross-posted trolling 
thread, started by Steve Firth.

12/08/09, thread header "This should please Doug".  The first cross-post 
appears to have been by Steve Firth.

-- 
Danny Colyer  <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"I'm riding a unicycle with my pants down.  This should be every boy's 
dream." - Bartholomew J Simpson

Danny Colyer  wrote:

> On 11/10/2009 04:41, Steve Firth wrote:
> > So is this peevish attack on me by you not trolling? And if you're
> > aleging that I'm a habitual cross poster or even that I start
> > cross-posted flamewars I'll point out that you're a liar.
> 
> A few seconds searching finds:
> 
> 13/07/09, thread header '"Have you got a fiver for petrol" scammer 
> caught on film'.  The first cross-post was by Steve Firth.

Disingenuous. The thread in question was started by "spindrift" a urc
regular who habitually posts anti-motorist propaganda into motoring
groups. His posts belong in urc, not in motoring related groups.

> 23/07/09. thread header "Duhg, is that you?".  Cross-posted trolling 
> thread, started by Steve Firth.

Trolling?

> 12/08/09, thread header "This should please Doug".  The first cross-post
> appears to have been by Steve Firth.

Ah yes, observations on cycling habits. Off topic for urc obviously.



Mea culpa, I've crossposted on three occasions in a year to urc.
Obviously the place is saturated with posts by me.

In article <1j7dz97.1k56i061fz4bidN%real-not-anti-spam-
address@apple-juice.co.uk>, real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-
juice.co.uk says...
> by maintaining the discipline that some of its nest-fouling
> readers aren't able to manage for themselves, by themselves.
> 
> 

Judging by the number of posts following this one, which seem 
to be composed almost entirely by fuckwit, fuckwit and 
yourself, I feel perhaps a pkb error is in order. :/

Thread killed.

-- 
Alan LeHun

Geoff Berrow  wrote:

> >So it's hard to see how 'the trolls', however annoying they are, can be
> >held solely responsible for the group's woes.
> 
> So you now agree, not much evidence of a troll problem.  OK I've only
> skimmed through a few days worth but I can't see any problems that
> can't be overcome by a bit of selective reading.  It's like objecting
> because your newspaper contains too much sport.  The answer is not to
> buy a newspaper without sport.  You just don't read the sports
> section.

I think there is a real troll problem, and I don't think that the
solution could be just a matter of selective reading. But I don't think
that it's the only serious problem. 

> >Hopefully the new moderated group will be like that, but it will achieve
> >this not simply by keeping out the trolls and the idiot crossposters,
> >but also by maintaining the discipline that some of its nest-fouling
> >readers aren't able to manage for themselves, by themselves.
> 
> It'll be the kiss of death if it is.

I don't know why you say that. Whatever caused the problems, the group
doesn't now seem to be in a state it can recover from, but that doesn't
mean that a fresh start isn't possible.

> Consider reality TV shows (not that I've watched any apart from the
> first series of Big Bro)  Which would be most popular, a show where
> everyone got on and peace an harmony reigned or one where people were
> at it hammer and tongs?

urc always used to have controversy and fierce debate. But it was about
whether the hub of a wheel can be said to be resting on its spokes or
not, or whether gyroscopic effects make a difference in practice, or
whether Campagnolo components are better than Shimano.

All that is quite different from what we're seeing now.
 
> I think a good many of the people who post to urc rather like the
> 'robust' debate however much they claim not to.

I don't think so. Some just post (or worse, cross-post) and aren't
engaged in debate, or don't even read replies except to contradict them.
Some post nothing but personal attacks. That's not liking robust debate,
it's just axe-grinding or fighting.

> It ain't going to work.

Well I hope you are wrong.

Daniele

On 2009-10-11, Steve Firth wrote:

> Danny Colyer  wrote:
>
>> On 11/10/2009 04:41, Steve Firth wrote:
>> > So is this peevish attack on me by you not trolling? And if you're
>> > aleging that I'm a habitual cross poster or even that I start
>> > cross-posted flamewars I'll point out that you're a liar.
>> 
>> A few seconds searching finds:
>> 
>> 13/07/09, thread header '"Have you got a fiver for petrol" scammer 
>> caught on film'.  The first cross-post was by Steve Firth.
>
> Disingenuous. The thread in question was started by "spindrift" a urc
> regular who habitually posts anti-motorist propaganda into motoring
> groups. His posts belong in urc, not in motoring related groups.
>
>> 23/07/09. thread header "Duhg, is that you?".  Cross-posted trolling 
>> thread, started by Steve Firth.
>
> Trolling?
>
>> 12/08/09, thread header "This should please Doug".  The first cross-post
>> appears to have been by Steve Firth.
>
> Ah yes, observations on cycling habits. Off topic for urc obviously.
>
>
>
> Mea culpa, I've crossposted on three occasions in a year to urc.
> Obviously the place is saturated with posts by me.

Well, you did say "I can save you the trouble, I've not initiated any
cross-posted thread to urc for years."

Also: "I care deeply about the uk news hierarchy and the
administration of that hierarchy."  Is cross-posting in a combination
that is known for flaming and trolling and that includes a a group
that you claim not to read and whose users you openly hate how you
show that deep care?

Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2009-10-16, David Damerell  wrote:
> > Then why _have_ you made up a de facto wording to be inserted into all
> > charters?
> 
> Are you still here?

Well the voice is here, the brain obviously is not.