Hello,

I'd like to appeal against the moderation decision to reject the
following post in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.

Posts containing just accusations against myself (and others) were
allowed containing no cycling content.  However my post where I try to
explain the relevance of my comments is rejected.

Post follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:20:10 +0000, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
>news:8bvbe55jo16bobjh9k84sho36vmgehm8o6@4ax.com...
>
><a couple of pages about driving and speed limits, with nary a mention of 
>cycling>
>
>I was rather hoping to leave those arguments behind when we came here. 

I wouldn't see this as an argument, purely a debate whether drivers
treat speed limits as a target, a factor that has a very direct effect
on the safefy of the cyclist.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
(\__/)  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.]

Mark wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'd like to appeal against the moderation decision to reject the
> following post in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
> 
> Posts containing just accusations against myself (and others) were
> allowed containing no cycling content.  However my post where I try to
> explain the relevance of my comments is rejected.

Perhaps it would be pertinent to point out that there was some
discussion (in hindsight) about whether the start of that should have
got through to begin with, and in the light of the fact it did we're
treating that particular thread with rather more caution subsequently.

So while it seems fair to ask "that got through, why didn't mine?",
internal discussion among mods suggests that it's a cock-up rather than
a conspiracy that the other one got through, and two wrongs won't make a
right.  These things happen :-(  Hopefully they will happen less now
we've agreed on thread-watching schemes.

Pete.
-- 
Peter Clinch                    Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637   Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177              Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk     http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message 
news:k7ode5t517btoeg1t527vn2bl10e48c3tp@4ax.com...
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to appeal against the moderation decision to reject the
> following post in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
>
> Posts containing just accusations against myself (and others) were
> allowed containing no cycling content.  However my post where I try to
> explain the relevance of my comments is rejected.

I expect there will be a moderator's response to this, but your post doesn't 
seem to be trying to explain anything you've written. If there was a quote 
from you in there, I might see it, but there ain't :-)

> Post follows:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:20:10 +0000, "Clive George"
>  wrote:
>
>>"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message
>>news:8bvbe55jo16bobjh9k84sho36vmgehm8o6@4ax.com...
>>
>><a couple of pages about driving and speed limits, with nary a mention of
>>cycling>
>>
>>I was rather hoping to leave those arguments behind when we came here.
>
> I wouldn't see this as an argument, purely a debate whether drivers
> treat speed limits as a target, a factor that has a very direct effect
> on the safefy of the cyclist.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:05:45 +0000, Mark
<i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:

>I'd like to appeal against the moderation decision to reject the
>following post in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.

I think there is an issue in how to handle topic drift.  The following
was rejected; obviously it is no more off-topic than the comment to
which it is a response, and I was trying to draw it back on topic in
considering what might actually benefit cycling, but the mods have
evidently decided that it's time to wind up that particular thread.  I
found the moderator's comment rather dismissive, though.  We have seen
ulm close off a thread with comments that "enough is enough" as it
were, telling me that a post intended to draw an off-topic thread back
on-topic is off-topic wen the rest of the thread was clearly also
off-topic looks like inconsistency.  I can understand why they would
want to avoid certain debates, it's about how you present your
decisions I think.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Do you have any evidence that it was ever any different?  As far as my
>> reading on the subject shows, there has never been a time when drivers
>> willingly accepted the speed limit, and there has never been a time at
>> which they were content to travel for any meaningful period at less
>> than the limit allowed.

>Well, it is one of the reasons for the creation of the AA and the RAC.
>The need for speed and the sheer selfishness as the moneyed clasess 
>bought in to motoring. "We own the world, we don't apologise for 
>anything and nothing stops 'progress' ".

Only the AA, I think - the RAC is an older body, though it too opposed
speed limits (and registrations and compulsory insurance, also on the
grounds that insured people would be less careful).

I think the fundamental problem is that drivers have some sort of
idealised picture of themselves as ideal drivers, whereas public
policy is based on the effects of very obviously non-ideal driving.

This is not as off-topic as it sounds, most of the danger and fear in
cycling comes from drivers who, in the main, have no idea that they
are doing anything wrong, or at least fail to consider that there is a
massive difference between risking bent metal and risking crushed
bodies.
 
I think a strict liability law would be a good way to begin to address
this problem, bit of course every time it's mooted it is presented in
terms of negligent cyclists wanting drivers to pay for the
consequences of the cyclists' cluelessness.  The parliamentary report
quoted recently is also significant: drivers perceive that most of the
risk to cyclists comes from the cyclists' own actions, whereas in
reality the opposite is true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:48:17 +0000, Peter Clinch
 wrote:

>So while it seems fair to ask "that got through, why didn't mine?",
>internal discussion among mods suggests that it's a cock-up rather than
>a conspiracy that the other one got through, and two wrongs won't make a
>right.  These things happen :-(  Hopefully they will happen less now
>we've agreed on thread-watching schemes.

And this is good.  People (read: me) get upset when someone states as
fact a personal opinion which is at odds with their own interpretation
of the evidence (e.g. stating as fact that there is a change in the
extent to which drivers treat the speed limit as a target; I have
evidence of this argument being in us.e as far back as 1865!).  So a
moderator' comment to the effect that this was off-topic and we've had
enough, would do nicely.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:44:54 -0000, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>"Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:k7ode5t517btoeg1t527vn2bl10e48c3tp@4ax.com...
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'd like to appeal against the moderation decision to reject the
>> following post in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
>>
>> Posts containing just accusations against myself (and others) were
>> allowed containing no cycling content.  However my post where I try to
>> explain the relevance of my comments is rejected.
>
>I expect there will be a moderator's response to this, but your post doesn't 
>seem to be trying to explain anything you've written. If there was a quote 
>from you in there, I might see it, but there ain't :-)

Eh?  Please read the last paragraph of my attempted post below:

>> Post follows:
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:20:10 +0000, "Clive George"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message
>>>news:8bvbe55jo16bobjh9k84sho36vmgehm8o6@4ax.com...
>>>
>>><a couple of pages about driving and speed limits, with nary a mention of
>>>cycling>
>>>
>>>I was rather hoping to leave those arguments behind when we came here.
>>
>> I wouldn't see this as an argument, purely a debate whether drivers
>> treat speed limits as a target, a factor that has a very direct effect
>> on the safefy of the cyclist.

This bit ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
(\__/)  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.]

"Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6otde5ptfod4a9lscjfvsfpl38st9i9nk2@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:44:54 -0000, "Clive George"
>  wrote:
>
>>"Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:k7ode5t517btoeg1t527vn2bl10e48c3tp@4ax.com...
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I'd like to appeal against the moderation decision to reject the
>>> following post in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
>>>
>>> Posts containing just accusations against myself (and others) were
>>> allowed containing no cycling content.  However my post where I try to
>>> explain the relevance of my comments is rejected.
>>
>>I expect there will be a moderator's response to this, but your post 
>>doesn't
>>seem to be trying to explain anything you've written. If there was a quote
>>from you in there, I might see it, but there ain't :-)
>
> Eh?  Please read the last paragraph of my attempted post below:

Yes, I did. I'm now confused - that attempted post appears to be addressing 
a post of Guy's, which is a reply to a post of mine. It contains one comment 
from you, whereas I would expect if you were trying to explain the relevance 
of your comments, I'd expect two sets - one being the original, the other 
being the explanation.

Your post looks to be trying to explain the relevance of Guy's comments, not 
yours.

And I still think it doesn't belong on urcm. Speed limit disussions are to 
driving what helmet discussions are to cycling - take a look at the endless 
tedious threads on uk.rec.driving for examples.

>>> Post follows:
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 21:20:10 +0000, "Clive George"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message
>>>>news:8bvbe55jo16bobjh9k84sho36vmgehm8o6@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>><a couple of pages about driving and speed limits, with nary a mention 
>>>>of
>>>>cycling>
>>>>
>>>>I was rather hoping to leave those arguments behind when we came here.
>>>
>>> I wouldn't see this as an argument, purely a debate whether drivers
>>> treat speed limits as a target, a factor that has a very direct effect
>>> on the safefy of the cyclist.
>
> This bit ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:05:32 -0000, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>"Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:6otde5ptfod4a9lscjfvsfpl38st9i9nk2@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:44:54 -0000, "Clive George"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>"Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:k7ode5t517btoeg1t527vn2bl10e48c3tp@4ax.com...
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to appeal against the moderation decision to reject the
>>>> following post in uk.rec.cycling.moderated.
>>>>
>>>> Posts containing just accusations against myself (and others) were
>>>> allowed containing no cycling content.  However my post where I try to
>>>> explain the relevance of my comments is rejected.
>>>
>>>I expect there will be a moderator's response to this, but your post 
>>>doesn't
>>>seem to be trying to explain anything you've written. If there was a quote
>>>from you in there, I might see it, but there ain't :-)
>>
>> Eh?  Please read the last paragraph of my attempted post below:
>
>Yes, I did. I'm now confused - that attempted post appears to be addressing 
>a post of Guy's, which is a reply to a post of mine. It contains one comment 
>from you, whereas I would expect if you were trying to explain the relevance 
>of your comments, I'd expect two sets - one being the original, the other 
>being the explanation.
>
>Your post looks to be trying to explain the relevance of Guy's comments, not 
>yours.

The problem being that all the comments had previously been snipped,
which included mine.

>And I still think it doesn't belong on urcm. Speed limit disussions are to 
>driving what helmet discussions are to cycling - take a look at the endless 
>tedious threads on uk.rec.driving for examples.

I don't read urd.  I don't believe that we should have 'taboo'
subjects on urcm.  Helmets and Speed limits are relevant to cycling in
the UK.

During the discussion on the RFD everyone seemed in agreement that
moderation would be "light" and only abusive, trolling and
continuously repetetive posts would be rejected.  This does not seem
to be happening right now IMHO.

-- 
(\__/)  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.]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:20:58 +0000, Mark
<i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:

>During the discussion on the RFD everyone seemed in agreement that
>moderation would be "light" and only abusive, trolling and
>continuously repetetive posts would be rejected. 


Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?
-- 
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

"Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message 
news:rk3ee5difrk238ktk12vgev57q62jh5vg1@4ax.com...

>>> Eh?  Please read the last paragraph of my attempted post below:
>>
>>Yes, I did. I'm now confused - that attempted post appears to be 
>>addressing
>>a post of Guy's, which is a reply to a post of mine. It contains one 
>>comment
>>from you, whereas I would expect if you were trying to explain the 
>>relevance
>>of your comments, I'd expect two sets - one being the original, the other
>>being the explanation.
>>
>>Your post looks to be trying to explain the relevance of Guy's comments, 
>>not
>>yours.
>
> The problem being that all the comments had previously been snipped,
> which included mine.

So you should have replied to yours, if you were addressing yours. Or 
restored your context. "I said earlier : >>> (etc)".

>>And I still think it doesn't belong on urcm. Speed limit disussions are to
>>driving what helmet discussions are to cycling - take a look at the 
>>endless
>>tedious threads on uk.rec.driving for examples.
>
> I don't read urd.  I don't believe that we should have 'taboo'
> subjects on urcm.  Helmets and Speed limits are relevant to cycling in
> the UK.

(reminder : I'm not a moderator)

I think that's pretty hopelessly naive.

Helmets are at least directly related to cycling, but great care needs to be 
taken with their discussion to avoid descent into the arguments which have 
all been presented many times over already.

Speed limits suffer from the same problems, and the link to cycling is 
tenuous. It's definitely debatable whether they help - see endless ad 
nauseum discussion in urd, urc, ukt, etc - and if one side of the argument 
is allowed to be presented (yours), it's important that the other is too 
(Clarkson's). At which point experience shows we enter a tedious shitstorm, 
just like with helmets.

There is a group which was created at least partly specifically to discuss 
speed limits. It's uk.rec.driving. If you really want to discuss them, I 
suggest you do so there. I'll not predict an easy time of it, but you won't 
find a complete lack of support.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:06:01 -0000, "Clive George"
 wrote:

>"Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message 
>news:rk3ee5difrk238ktk12vgev57q62jh5vg1@4ax.com...
>
>>>> Eh?  Please read the last paragraph of my attempted post below:
>>>
>>>Yes, I did. I'm now confused - that attempted post appears to be 
>>>addressing
>>>a post of Guy's, which is a reply to a post of mine. It contains one 
>>>comment
>>>from you, whereas I would expect if you were trying to explain the 
>>>relevance
>>>of your comments, I'd expect two sets - one being the original, the other
>>>being the explanation.
>>>
>>>Your post looks to be trying to explain the relevance of Guy's comments, 
>>>not
>>>yours.
>>
>> The problem being that all the comments had previously been snipped,
>> which included mine.
>
>So you should have replied to yours, if you were addressing yours. Or 
>restored your context. "I said earlier : >>> (etc)".

Yes.  In the ideal world I could have done this or replied to an
earlier post instead.

>>>And I still think it doesn't belong on urcm. Speed limit disussions are to
>>>driving what helmet discussions are to cycling - take a look at the 
>>>endless
>>>tedious threads on uk.rec.driving for examples.
>>
>> I don't read urd.  I don't believe that we should have 'taboo'
>> subjects on urcm.  Helmets and Speed limits are relevant to cycling in
>> the UK.
>
>(reminder : I'm not a moderator)
>
>I think that's pretty hopelessly naive.

I disagree.

>Helmets are at least directly related to cycling, but great care needs to be 
>taken with their discussion to avoid descent into the arguments which have 
>all been presented many times over already.

Just because threads can descend into arguments, it doesn't mean that
they all will.  In a moderated group it can easily be stopped. However
I don't think they should be stopped just because they /might/ descend
into arguments at some point in the future.

>Speed limits suffer from the same problems, and the link to cycling is 
>tenuous. It's definitely debatable whether they help - see endless ad 
>nauseum discussion in urd, urc, ukt, etc - and if one side of the argument 
>is allowed to be presented (yours), it's important that the other is too 
>(Clarkson's). At which point experience shows we enter a tedious shitstorm, 
>just like with helmets.

Again this doesn't have to happen.  IMHO the thread I am referring to
showed no signs of degenerating into a "shitstorm". No-one was trying
to put forward a "Clarkson" point of view either.  People don't always
take the most extreme views possible and attempt to argue them on a
moderated NG.

>There is a group which was created at least partly specifically to discuss 
>speed limits. It's uk.rec.driving. If you really want to discuss them, I 
>suggest you do so there. I'll not predict an easy time of it, but you won't 
>find a complete lack of support.

I don't see the relevance of what is discussed on another NG .  I was
replying to a post about speed limits that had already been allowed.

Anyway I think we've said enough about this now so I am not intending
to post on this thread again.
-- 
(\__/)  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.]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:05:09 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:48:17 +0000, Peter Clinch
> wrote:
>
>>So while it seems fair to ask "that got through, why didn't mine?",
>>internal discussion among mods suggests that it's a cock-up rather than
>>a conspiracy that the other one got through, and two wrongs won't make a
>>right.  These things happen :-(  Hopefully they will happen less now
>>we've agreed on thread-watching schemes.
>
>And this is good.  People (read: me) get upset when someone states as
>fact a personal opinion which is at odds with their own interpretation
>of the evidence (e.g. stating as fact that there is a change in the
>extent to which drivers treat the speed limit as a target; I have
>evidence of this argument being in us.e as far back as 1865!).  So a
>moderator' comment to the effect that this was off-topic and we've had
>enough, would do nicely.
> 
>Guy


Here are some facts - not personal opinion - why do you object to me
quoting them:

Latest DfT Figures:
Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers
Killed or seriously injured:  Pedal Cyclists : 527    Pedestrians 371
All casualties:  Pedal Cyclists : 3494    Pedestrians : 1631

Here are some more:

--          

I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)