Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
> wrote:
>>If only there were some provision in the Guidelines for the case where "in
>>all but exceptional or unusual cases an RFD ought to follow this
>>guideline".
>Or is it Krusty?

God forbid you do the one thing you're actually mandated to do rather than
be obstructionist.
-- 
David Damerell  Kill the tomato!
Yesterday was Second Gouday, September.
Today is Second Chedday, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Second Stilday, September - a weekend.

On 08 Oct 2009 16:59:24 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>> wrote:
>>>If only there were some provision in the Guidelines for the case where "in
>>>all but exceptional or unusual cases an RFD ought to follow this
>>>guideline".
>>Or is it Krusty?
>
>God forbid you do the one thing you're actually mandated to do rather than
>be obstructionist.

You seem to be crossing the line from simple fuckwittery to full blown
kook status.

Exactly how are we not doing what we are mandated to do?

Exactly how am I obstructing anything?




-- 
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

Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
> wrote:
>>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>> wrote:
>>>>If only there were some provision in the Guidelines for the case where "in
>>>>all but exceptional or unusual cases an RFD ought to follow this
>>>>guideline".
>>>Or is it Krusty?
>>God forbid you do the one thing you're actually mandated to do rather than
>>be obstructionist.
>Exactly how are we not doing what we are mandated to do?

The committee is mandated to document the group creation process. The
no-HTML rule is one that "in all but exceptional or unusual cases an RFD
ought to follow".

I'm impressed at the sheer amount of weaselling going on to suggest that a
piece of wording which is expected to be in every RFD should go nowhere
near the Guidelines, but at the end of the line, there's something to
document, document it. It's the committee's job.

>Exactly how am I obstructing anything?

Trying to prevent the RFD for urcm from being posted to urc was nothing
but obstructionism on the Committee's part, for example.

It seems quite clear to me that urcm - the only group creation activity
for some time, and (judging by the vote outcome) one of the most desired
groups ever - has been created in spite of the Committee, rather than with
the assistance they are expected to provide.
-- 
David Damerell  Kill the tomato!
Yesterday was Second Gouday, September.
Today is Second Chedday, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Second Stilday, September - a weekend.

On 08 Oct 2009 19:03:33 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>Trying to prevent the RFD for urcm from being posted to urc was nothing
>but obstructionism on the Committee's part, for example.

Bollocks.

>It seems quite clear to me that urcm - the only group creation activity
>for some time, and (judging by the vote outcome) one of the most desired
>groups ever - has been created in spite of the Committee, rather than with
>the assistance they are expected to provide.

Look you fucking idiot, it's simple, and should even be understood by
a complete twunt like you:  The Committee offerede advice that enabled
the RFD to be posted in a way that would cause less agrument.  
Therefore we helped the Proponent and supporters of the group get it
to a vote long, long before it otherwise would have done.

TBH, I rather wish we hadn't bothered and let the prick 'do it his own
way'.  I expect the discussion would still be ongoing.

On 08 Oct 2009 19:03:33 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>> wrote:
>>>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>If only there were some provision in the Guidelines for the case where "in
>>>>>all but exceptional or unusual cases an RFD ought to follow this
>>>>>guideline".
>>>>Or is it Krusty?
>>>God forbid you do the one thing you're actually mandated to do rather than
>>>be obstructionist.
>>Exactly how are we not doing what we are mandated to do?
>
>The committee is mandated to document the group creation process.

No, it isn't. The group creation process is documented by a process of
RFD/CFV to form the guidelines. All that the committee is responsible
for is publishing and interpreting them.

>It seems quite clear to me that urcm - the only group creation activity
>for some time, and (judging by the vote outcome) one of the most desired
>groups ever - has been created in spite of the Committee, rather than with
>the assistance they are expected to provide.

The committee isn't expected to provide anyone with any assistance,
The committee's role is to be impartial and ensure that the procedures
are followed.

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

"Mark Goodge"  wrote ...

> On 08 Oct 2009 19:03:33 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>> wrote:
>>>>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>If only there were some provision in the Guidelines for the case where 
>>>>>>"in
>>>>>>all but exceptional or unusual cases an RFD ought to follow this
>>>>>>guideline".
>>>>>Or is it Krusty?
>>>>God forbid you do the one thing you're actually mandated to do rather 
>>>>than
>>>>be obstructionist.
>>>Exactly how are we not doing what we are mandated to do?
>>
>>The committee is mandated to document the group creation process.
>
> No, it isn't. The group creation process is documented by a process of
> RFD/CFV to form the guidelines. All that the committee is responsible
> for is publishing and interpreting them.

http://www.usenet.org.uk/committee.html

<quotes>

Terms Of Reference

It will ensure that the rules for group creation are documented, followed 
and applied.

</quotes>

On 08 Oct 2009 19:03:33 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
 wrote:

>>Exactly how are we not doing what we are mandated to do?
>
>The committee is mandated to document the group creation process. The
>no-HTML rule is one that "in all but exceptional or unusual cases an RFD
>ought to follow".
Nevertheless it's not part of the official guidelines.
>
>I'm impressed at the sheer amount of weaselling going on to suggest that a
>piece of wording which is expected to be in every RFD should go nowhere
>near the Guidelines, but at the end of the line, there's something to
>document, document it. It's the committee's job.

I repeat, it's not part of the official guidelines.  'No HTML' may
well be  the de facto case but until someone writes an RFD to put it
in the guidelines, there is nothing to document.  The committee can't
simply alter the guidelines as it sees fit.  We have a process and we
stick to it.

>>Exactly how am I obstructing anything?
>
>Trying to prevent the RFD for urcm from being posted to urc was nothing
>but obstructionism on the Committee's part, for example.

Bollocks.  

Members of the committee simply gave well intentioned advice.  What on
earth have we got to gain by obstructing the process?  I may not think
the group is necessary but you flatter yourself if you think I care
enough about it to obstruct it.

I'll say this once more.  The proponent suggested a form of words that
had not been used before.  Members of the committee (with long and
considerably better memories than yours, it appears) pointed out the
possible dangers of this.  Now that /is/ in our remit.
-- 
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

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:08:18 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On 08 Oct 2009 19:03:33 +0100 (BST), David Damerell
> wrote:
>
>>Trying to prevent the RFD for urcm from being posted to urc was nothing
>>but obstructionism on the Committee's part, for example.
>
>Bollocks.
>
>>It seems quite clear to me that urcm - the only group creation activity
>>for some time, and (judging by the vote outcome) one of the most desired
>>groups ever - has been created in spite of the Committee, rather than with
>>the assistance they are expected to provide.
>
>Look you fucking idiot, it's simple, and should even be understood by
>a complete twunt like you:  The Committee offerede advice that enabled
>the RFD to be posted in a way that would cause less agrument.  
>Therefore we helped the Proponent and supporters of the group get it
>to a vote long, long before it otherwise would have done.
>
>TBH, I rather wish we hadn't bothered and let the prick 'do it his own
>way'.  I expect the discussion would still be ongoing.


I assume that you are speaking in some official capacity  - as you
have not said otherwise.

Is this your view (as a member of the committee) - or the view of the
committee as a whole?


--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:14:31 +0100, jms 
wrote:

>I assume that you are speaking in some official capacity  - as you
>have not said otherwise.

Then you are wrong, yet again, dear troll.

<plonk>

jms  said:


>
> I assume that you are speaking in some official capacity  - as you
> have not said otherwise.
>
> Is this your view (as a member of the committee) - or the view of the
> committee as a whole?

You assume entirely wrongly.  Members of the committee post as private 
individuals unless it is specifically mentioned that they are posting on 
behalf of the committee.  Not the way around you seem to think, though some 
like to make it clear, for the benefit of fuckwits.

All my own personal opinion of course.


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:23:59 +0100, .m  
wrote:

>On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:14:31 +0100, jms 
>wrote:
>
>>I assume that you are speaking in some official capacity  - as you
>>have not said otherwise.
>
>Then you are wrong, yet again, dear troll.
>
><plonk>


Perhaps you should agree some commonality.

(Or is that perhaps  just too difficult for you - probably so from
what I have seen)

Most of the committee make it clear that they are not speaking as the
committed - why don't you?


--  

British Medical Association (BMA)
View on helmets:

Several studies provided solid scientific evidence that bicycle helmets
protect against head, brain, severe brain and facial injuries,
as well as death, as a result of cycling accidents

%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) considered Fri, 9 Oct 2009 14:00:45
+0100 the perfect time to write:

>.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.

We all got to read it in real time.
Trying to retrospectively rewrite history just makes you look even
more of a complete wanker.

It's also clear that the system is broken, and badly.

Or am I just imagining that the new group STILL doesn't exist?

On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:51:31 GMT, The Happy Hippy put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>
>"Mark Goodge"  wrote ...
>
>> On 08 Oct 2009 19:03:33 +0100 (BST), David Damerell put finger to
>> keyboard and typed:
>>
>>>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Quoting  Geoff Berrow  :
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>If only there were some provision in the Guidelines for the case where 
>>>>>>>"in
>>>>>>>all but exceptional or unusual cases an RFD ought to follow this
>>>>>>>guideline".
>>>>>>Or is it Krusty?
>>>>>God forbid you do the one thing you're actually mandated to do rather 
>>>>>than
>>>>>be obstructionist.
>>>>Exactly how are we not doing what we are mandated to do?
>>>
>>>The committee is mandated to document the group creation process.
>>
>> No, it isn't. The group creation process is documented by a process of
>> RFD/CFV to form the guidelines. All that the committee is responsible
>> for is publishing and interpreting them.
>
>http://www.usenet.org.uk/committee.html
>
><quotes>
>
>Terms Of Reference
>
>It will ensure that the rules for group creation are documented, followed 
>and applied.
>
></quotes> 

Yes. What that means is that it is the committee's responsibility to
ensure that that CFV decisions are documented and published. It
doesn't mean that the committee is entitled to make up the rules as
they go along.

Mark

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

On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:33:45 +0100, "kat" 
wrote:

>jms  said:
>
>
>>
>> I assume that you are speaking in some official capacity  - as you
>> have not said otherwise.
>>
>> Is this your view (as a member of the committee) - or the view of the
>> committee as a whole?
>
>You assume entirely wrongly.  Members of the committee post as private 
>individuals unless it is specifically mentioned that they are posting on 
>behalf of the committee.  Not the way around you seem to think, though some 
>like to make it clear, for the benefit of fuckwits.
>
>All my own personal opinion of course.


Fine - so when those other members  of the committee say that they are
*not* speaking as a member  of the committee - they don't need to do
that.

Perhaps you should consider being consistent - it can obviously lead
to confusion.  

Is that possible?

I thought that it was the whole committee who were telling Jackson to
fuck off in such inappropriate language.


(PS Have you any pictures of the wedding - it seemed so fascinating
when I read all about it in uk.net.news.config - is that the sort of
thing you discuss in the committee?)


-- 
The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK.  Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

jms  said:

> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 13:33:45 +0100, "kat" 
> wrote:
>
>> jms  said:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I assume that you are speaking in some official capacity  - as you
>>> have not said otherwise.
>>>
>>> Is this your view (as a member of the committee) - or the view of
>>> the committee as a whole?
>>
>> You assume entirely wrongly.  Members of the committee post as
>> private individuals unless it is specifically mentioned that they
>> are posting on behalf of the committee.  Not the way around you seem
>> to think, though some like to make it clear, for the benefit of
>> fuckwits.
>>
>> All my own personal opinion of course.
>
>
> Fine - so when those other members  of the committee say that they are
> *not* speaking as a member  of the committee - they don't need to do
> that.
>
> Perhaps you should consider being consistent - it can obviously lead
> to confusion.
>

I am very consistent.  I never bother - normally.  Except as above.:-)



> Is that possible?
>
> I thought that it was the whole committee who were telling Jackson to
> fuck off in such inappropriate language.
>
>
> (PS Have you any pictures of the wedding - it seemed so fascinating
> when I read all about it in uk.net.news.config - is that the sort of
> thing you discuss in the committee?)

Oh yes, lots.  You want links?


-- 
kat
   >^..^<

Ian Smith  wrote:

> >  Do you have a reading disability? Or perhaps you're having problems
> >  witht he definition of the word "lie". I'll help you out. Making a
> >  statement that one believes to be true is not a lie. Hence I didn't lie.
> 
> Yes, that's her other favourite - yes I lied, but I didn't mean to, so
> I didn't.  You've got it down pat, well done.

I wouldn't know, the only time I see posts from URC regulars is when you
escape to spread your contamination to other newsgroups. Like this one.
After all your whining here has nothign to do with unnc or indeed to do
with cycling. It's just your usual hate-fest, which you seem to need and
now that urc is calming down, you escape to do it elsewhere.

However the fact that two people understand what a lie is, and you
apparently don't doesn't mean that the two people are wrong.

This is, BTW, elementary use of the language, taught at primary schools.
When you get to a secondary school (face it, you're not going to get
into a grammar) you will learn about fallacies, and in particular about
"tu quoque" which is the cyclists' favourite fallacy.

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:45:21 +0100,
real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:

>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.

Hold that thought...
>
>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.

Indeed!
>
>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.
>
>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'll be the kiss of death if it is.

>
>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.

It's not necessary.

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?

I think a good many of the people who post to urc rather like the
'robust' debate however much they claim not to.

It ain't going to work.
-- 
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