This post with the subject line: "Re: 3feet2Pass - No. 10 petition" was 
posted by me to ukrm at 23:18 on Sunday evening.

At 12:07 this afternoon it was rejected by a moderator as "needlessly 
inflammatory", with the additional moderator comment:
'I have explained the answers to the questions you are asking here.  I 
think the reference to European harmonisation is a reference to "I think 
1.5m is a distance used in other places" from Guy.'

I would like to hear what other people think about this post, the urcm 
moderator's verdict and the additional moderator comment.

-----Post start-----
  Phil W Lee wrote:
  > "Just zis Guy, you know?"  considered Sat, 24
  > Oct 2009 22:42:13 +0100 the perfect time to write:
  >
  >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:00:51 +0100, bod43  wrote:
  >>
  >>> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister
  >>> to introduce legislation that all motorists must allow
  >>> a minimum of 3 feet in distance between their
  >>> vehicle and a cyclist that they drive past."
  >> Terrible idea - the distance is insufficient. I think 1.5m is a
  >> distance used in other places, but even that is a bit skimpy
  >> sometimes.  The problem is that drivers will think 3' is sufficient
  >> when passing on a single-carriageway at 60mph.
  >>
  > I'm strongly inclined to agree.
  > A 1.5m would also have the benefit of being seen as a "European
  > harmonisation" measure.
  > Anything less is almost an endorsement of bad driving, as it is
  > considerably less then the currently recommended "at least as much
  > space as for a car".

  When you say that a 1.5m law would be seen as a European harmonisation
  measure, what do you mean.  Do the whole of rest of Europe have such a
  law?  And even if they do, what is the "benefit" of harmonisation do
  you think?

  --
  Matt B
  2009-10-25 23:18:16 GMT (Sunday)
-----Post end-----

-- 
Matt B

In message , Matt B 
 writes
>This post with the subject line: "Re: 3feet2Pass - No. 10 petition" was 
>posted by me to ukrm at 23:18 on Sunday evening.
>
>At 12:07 this afternoon it was rejected by a moderator as "needlessly 
>inflammatory", with the additional moderator comment:
>'I have explained the answers to the questions you are asking here. I 
>think the reference to European harmonisation is a reference to "I 
>think 1.5m is a distance used in other places" from Guy.'
>
>I would like to hear what other people think about this post, the urcm 
>moderator's verdict and the additional moderator comment.

Are you asking if others believe he could be afflicted with delusions of 
adequacy?

-- 
< Paul >

"Matt B"  wrote in message 
news:7kmnc0F39tpj7U1@mid.individual.net...
> This post with the subject line: "Re: 3feet2Pass - No. 10 petition" was 
> posted by me to ukrm at 23:18 on Sunday evening.

The reason for rejection is obvious and I'm surprised you even need to ask. 
You're not a mate of Ian "Stalin" Jackson is the reason.

On Oct 27, 7:50 am, Matt B  wrote:
> This post with the subject line: "Re: 3feet2Pass - No. 10 petition" was
> posted by me to ukrm at 23:18 on Sunday evening.
>
> At 12:07 this afternoon it was rejected by a moderator as "needlessly
> inflammatory", with the additional moderator comment:
> 'I have explained the answers to the questions you are asking here.  I
> think the reference to European harmonisation is a reference to "I think
> 1.5m is a distance used in other places" from Guy.'
>
> I would like to hear what other people think about this post, the urcm
> moderator's verdict and the additional moderator comment.
>

I think your post was a bit crap, but I am inclined to disagree with
the decision to reject it.

James

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:50:57 +0000, Matt B
 wrote:

>This post with the subject line: "Re: 3feet2Pass - No. 10 petition" was 
>posted by me to ukrm at 23:18 on Sunday evening.
>
>At 12:07 this afternoon it was rejected by a moderator as "needlessly 
>inflammatory", with the additional moderator comment:
>'I have explained the answers to the questions you are asking here.  I 
>think the reference to European harmonisation is a reference to "I think 
>1.5m is a distance used in other places" from Guy.'
>
>I would like to hear what other people think about this post, the urcm 
>moderator's verdict and the additional moderator comment.
>
>-----Post start-----
>  Phil W Lee wrote:
>  > "Just zis Guy, you know?"  considered Sat, 24
>  > Oct 2009 22:42:13 +0100 the perfect time to write:
>  >
>  >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:00:51 +0100, bod43  wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister
>  >>> to introduce legislation that all motorists must allow
>  >>> a minimum of 3 feet in distance between their
>  >>> vehicle and a cyclist that they drive past."
>  >> Terrible idea - the distance is insufficient. I think 1.5m is a
>  >> distance used in other places, but even that is a bit skimpy
>  >> sometimes.  The problem is that drivers will think 3' is sufficient
>  >> when passing on a single-carriageway at 60mph.
>  >>
>  > I'm strongly inclined to agree.
>  > A 1.5m would also have the benefit of being seen as a "European
>  > harmonisation" measure.
>  > Anything less is almost an endorsement of bad driving, as it is
>  > considerably less then the currently recommended "at least as much
>  > space as for a car".
>
>  When you say that a 1.5m law would be seen as a European harmonisation
>  measure, what do you mean.  Do the whole of rest of Europe have such a
>  law?  And even if they do, what is the "benefit" of harmonisation do
>  you think?
>
>  --
>  Matt B
>  2009-10-25 23:18:16 GMT (Sunday)
>-----Post end-----

This is from a quick glance at the times  - I am sure someone will
point out if I have made a mistake, and looking at things purely from
the timing point of view:

It Stinks

The previous post to yours was one by a certain Mr  Ian Jackson whose
message is received at 22:52 and posted at 22:55.  Excellent
turn-round of 3 mins - I wonder who approved that so quickly???

Your message is then received 20 minutes later and then sat on for 12
hours

In the mean time Phil Lee makes a post at 01:57 - and it is approved
within the hour

Even the following morning Toom made a post at 09:32 which was posted
half an hour later.


One simple question (ignoring the dodgy reasons for rejection etc) is
- if my interpretation of times is correct - why was your post
actually sat on?

--  

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 Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:50:57 +0000
Matt B  wrote:

> This post with the subject line: "Re: 3feet2Pass - No. 10 petition"
> was posted by me to ukrm at 23:18 on Sunday evening.
> 
> At 12:07 this afternoon it was rejected by a moderator as "needlessly 
> inflammatory", with the additional moderator comment:
> 'I have explained the answers to the questions you are asking here.
> I think the reference to European harmonisation is a reference to "I
> think 1.5m is a distance used in other places" from Guy.'
> 
> I would like to hear what other people think about this post, the
> urcm moderator's verdict and the additional moderator comment.
> 
<snip>
I can see no reason to reject the post.  The moderator doesn't seem to
have understood it, which I find bizarre.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:26:46 +0000, "Paul C. Dickie"
 wrote:

>In message , Matt B 
> writes
>>This post with the subject line: "Re: 3feet2Pass - No. 10 petition" was 
>>posted by me to ukrm at 23:18 on Sunday evening.
>>
>>At 12:07 this afternoon it was rejected by a moderator as "needlessly 
>>inflammatory", with the additional moderator comment:
>>'I have explained the answers to the questions you are asking here. I 
>>think the reference to European harmonisation is a reference to "I 
>>think 1.5m is a distance used in other places" from Guy.'
>>
>>I would like to hear what other people think about this post, the urcm 
>>moderator's verdict and the additional moderator comment.
>
>Are you asking if others believe he could be afflicted with delusions of 
>adequacy?


I am not sure - he may have been asking if "Paul C. Dickie" was a
fuckwit.

Thanks for the confirmation.

--  

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

In message , jms 
 writes
>I am not sure - he may have been asking if "Paul C. Dickie" was a
>fuckwit.

Or if "Judith M. Smith" had the vocabulary of a common guttersnipe?

-- 
< Paul >