Was just looking through the reject pile and noticed Norman's post:

http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=80961&returnto=3displayulm.php

That seems like a bit of hair-trigger decision. Norman raised a
legitimate point that could be answered, and I can't see how his post
was abusive at all - and heaven forbid guys who are regulars can't
between themselves use a forceful or rhetorical tone.

Like I've said before, if a post contains even a scintilla of
legitimate material, then I'd prefer the moderators to allow the post
rather than attempt to spare my feelings.

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:9f85a1ec-3e71-4314-b13a-e77a4f331d07@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
> Was just looking through the reject pile and noticed Norman's post:
>
> http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=80961&returnto=3displayulm.php
>
> That seems like a bit of hair-trigger decision. Norman raised a
> legitimate point that could be answered, and I can't see how his post
> was abusive at all - and heaven forbid guys who are regulars can't
> between themselves use a forceful or rhetorical tone.
>
> Like I've said before, if a post contains even a scintilla of
> legitimate material, then I'd prefer the moderators to allow the post
> rather than attempt to spare my feelings.

Although it wasn't my decision to reject, I agree with the decision.

The offending lines are: "Go and look up "specific performance"" which I 
think was intended to sound rather lofty and schoolmastery.

It isn't helpful to say "go and look up" anything.  And I don't really like 
the phrase "You still haven't grasped it yet..." in the previous post. 
Patronising posts aren't welcome or useful.  It ought to be possible for 
people to respect each other's intelligence and not sound as if they were 
talking to a pupil in the D stream.  Just set out your points and then, if 
your opponent disagrees, don't keep repeating them because in usenet you 
aren't likely to see "you've convinced me and I agree I was mistaken", at 
least not very often.

I have long ago lost interest in that particular thread. I think the 
original point, somewhere, was something to do with whether it is immoral to 
deliberately breach a contract or refuse to honour your obligations under a 
contract. I don't think there is any valid conclusion that can be drawn. 
Maybe we should have rejected the posts as repetitive, quite apart from 
whether they are excessively sarky.

You and Norman might actually enjoy being sarcastic towards each other and 
might dislike your posts being characterised as hurtful/abusive because you 
are both thick-skinned. To that, I'd say you set a bad example to other 
posters.

On 27 Oct, 18:08, "The Todal"  wrote:
> "Ste"  wrote in message
>
> news:9f85a1ec-3e71-4314-b13a-e77a4f331d07@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Was just looking through the reject pile and noticed Norman's post:
>
> >http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=80961&returnto=...
>
> > That seems like a bit of hair-trigger decision. Norman raised a
> > legitimate point that could be answered, and I can't see how his post
> > was abusive at all - and heaven forbid guys who are regulars can't
> > between themselves use a forceful or rhetorical tone.
>
> > Like I've said before, if a post contains even a scintilla of
> > legitimate material, then I'd prefer the moderators to allow the post
> > rather than attempt to spare my feelings.
>
> Although it wasn't my decision to reject, I agree with the decision.
>
> The offending lines are: "Go and look up "specific performance"" which I
> think was intended to sound rather lofty and schoolmastery.

Yes, and indeed that was how I received it.



> It isn't helpful to say "go and look up" anything.  And I don't really like
> the phrase "You still haven't grasped it yet..." in the previous post.
> Patronising posts aren't welcome or useful.  It ought to be possible for
> people to respect each other's intelligence and not sound as if they were
> talking to a pupil in the D stream.  Just set out your points and then, if
> your opponent disagrees, don't keep repeating them because in usenet you
> aren't likely to see "you've convinced me and I agree I was mistaken", at
> least not very often.

Believe it or not I have made statements to that effect before now.



> I have long ago lost interest in that particular thread. I think the
> original point, somewhere, was something to do with whether it is immoral to
> deliberately breach a contract or refuse to honour your obligations under a
> contract. I don't think there is any valid conclusion that can be drawn.
> Maybe we should have rejected the posts as repetitive, quite apart from
> whether they are excessively sarky.

Stale the thread may be, but it seems to me that the point about
specific performance was a legitimate one, and could have led to a
discussion about how it is an equitable remedy that is of course
discretionary, and we could also have discussed the circumstances in
which specific performance may be ordered and why (and why such an
order would not detract from the principle that, if you breach a
contract, and you can pay adequate compensation, then that is
perfectly acceptable).



> You and Norman might actually enjoy being sarcastic towards each other and
> might dislike your posts being characterised as hurtful/abusive because you
> are both thick-skinned. To that, I'd say you set a bad example to other
> posters.

I know that's an issue you have to balance, but surely one should err
on the side of allowing discussion, rather than ending up with a group
who are all terribly polite to each other, but who are as dull as
dishwater and who don't discuss a great deal of law. And like I've
said before, the size of uklm is such that guys can generally
negotiate between themselves what is acceptable and what isn't - with
the moderating influence of the moderators, of course.

Ste wrote:
> On 27 Oct, 18:08, "The Todal"  wrote:

>> You and Norman might actually enjoy being sarcastic towards each other
>> and might dislike your posts being characterised as hurtful/abusive
>> because you are both thick-skinned. To that, I'd say you set a bad
>> example to other posters.
>
> I know that's an issue you have to balance, but surely one should err
> on the side of allowing discussion

Nobody is prohibiting discussion, including statements of disagreement. 
It's the calculated hint of disdain which we would like to discourage, as it 
often leads to angry, personally hostile exchanges.

On 27 Oct, 19:15, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 27 Oct, 18:08, "The Todal"  wrote:
> >> You and Norman might actually enjoy being sarcastic towards each other
> >> and might dislike your posts being characterised as hurtful/abusive
> >> because you are both thick-skinned. To that, I'd say you set a bad
> >> example to other posters.
>
> > I know that's an issue you have to balance, but surely one should err
> > on the side of allowing discussion
>
> Nobody is prohibiting discussion, including statements of disagreement.

I accept no one's aim is to prohibit discussion, but babies and
bathwater come to mind here.



> It's the calculated hint of disdain which we would like to discourage, as it
> often leads to angry, personally hostile exchanges.

It may occasionally lead to such exchanges, but it does not inevitably
do so (I dare say it hardly ever does), and surely the moderators are
there to cut off such exchanges when they do happen, not forestall
them even at the cost of cutting off legitimate discussion. I mean
uk.legal is totally unmoderated, and is often the place where people
go to say things that they know they can't on the moderated group, and
yet it is hardly a tinderbox where angry exchanges occur frequently at
the drop of a hat.

And frankly I'm quite surprised at the reaction here. Are we now
saying that moderation is justified not because a post uses outright
insulting or abusive language, but simply because a moderator doesn't
like the tone in which a legitimate point is made?

Ste wrote:

> And frankly I'm quite surprised at the reaction here. Are we now
> saying that moderation is justified not because a post uses outright
> insulting or abusive language, but simply because a moderator doesn't
> like the tone in which a legitimate point is made?

No Ste, that's not what we're "now saying".  The moderators have _always_ 
intervened at their discretion to reject posts which have a hurtful, 
sarcastic, personalised or otherwise inappropriate tone, and we will 
continue to do so.

On 27 Oct, 20:12, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > And frankly I'm quite surprised at the reaction here. Are we now
> > saying that moderation is justified not because a post uses outright
> > insulting or abusive language, but simply because a moderator doesn't
> > like the tone in which a legitimate point is made?
>
> No Ste, that's not what we're "now saying".  The moderators have _always_
> intervened at their discretion to reject posts which have a hurtful,
> sarcastic, personalised or otherwise inappropriate tone, and we will
> continue to do so.

"We're in charge here, now belt up!" Well that's me told. ;)

Ste  wrote in
news:582a18cd-e7b7-4a2d-a110-
1e3571f117dc@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com
: 

> On 27 Oct, 20:12, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>> > And frankly I'm quite surprised at the reaction here. Are we
>> > now saying that moderation is justified not because a post uses
>> > outright insulting or abusive language, but simply because a
>> > moderator doesn't like the tone in which a legitimate point is
>> > made? 
>>
>> No Ste, that's not what we're "now saying".  The moderators have
>> _alway 
> s_
>> intervened at their discretion to reject posts which have a
>> hurtful, sarcastic, personalised or otherwise inappropriate tone,
>> and we will continue to do so.
> 
> "We're in charge here, now belt up!" Well that's me told. ;)

ITYWF that a considerable proportion of the regular users have heard 
this point discussed before (quite recently actually) and a most of 
those commenting agree with the moderators.  So all you are being 
told is that this is established group moderation policy and 
unlikely to be changed unless a lot more people take up your point 
of view. Actually, while I think of it, I do think you tend to 
indulge in very long and repetitious exchanges over the same point, 
usually a political opinion as to what the law should be, long after 
most people have understood the point at issue and don't want to 
hear the same thing over and over again:  IOW you are treated with 
extreme courtesy by the moderators, often.

-- 
Percy Picacity

On 27 Oct, 22:04, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> Ste  wrote in
>
> > On 27 Oct, 20:12, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
> >> Ste wrote:
> >> > And frankly I'm quite surprised at the reaction here. Are we
> >> > now saying that moderation is justified not because a post uses
> >> > outright insulting or abusive language, but simply because a
> >> > moderator doesn't like the tone in which a legitimate point is
> >> > made?
>
> >> No Ste, that's not what we're "now saying".  The moderators have
> >> _alway
> > s_
> >> intervened at their discretion to reject posts which have a
> >> hurtful, sarcastic, personalised or otherwise inappropriate tone,
> >> and we will continue to do so.
>
> > "We're in charge here, now belt up!" Well that's me told. ;)
>
> ITYWF that a considerable proportion of the regular users have heard
> this point discussed before (quite recently actually) and a most of
> those commenting agree with the moderators.  So all you are being
> told is that this is established group moderation policy and
> unlikely to be changed unless a lot more people take up your point
> of view.

I respect that Percy. I don't necessarily agree, but I've said my
piece and that's that. And what I said above wasn't a sarcastic dig
(in case it came across like that), it was just a slightly more
comical reinterpretation of what was actually said, and was not a
reflection of any hard feelings; I like laughing almost as much as I
like rhetoric.



> Actually, while I think of it, I do think you tend to
> indulge in very long and repetitious exchanges over the same point,
> usually a political opinion as to what the law should be, long after
> most people have understood the point at issue and don't want to
> hear the same thing over and over again:

I'm not sure whether you're referring to something specific and
recent, but in any event I'll have to try harder to avoid repeating
myself; perhaps I like the sound of my own voice too much (people have
commented that I talk out loud when I'm typing).



>  IOW you are treated with
> extreme courtesy by the moderators, often.

I know and I have absolutely no complaints about the moderators
personally, and never have.

Ste wrote:
> On 27 Oct, 22:04, Percy Picacity <k...@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> Ste  wrote in
>>
>>> On 27 Oct, 20:12, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
>>>> Ste wrote:
>>>>> And frankly I'm quite surprised at the reaction here. Are we
>>>>> now saying that moderation is justified not because a post uses
>>>>> outright insulting or abusive language, but simply because a
>>>>> moderator doesn't like the tone in which a legitimate point is
>>>>> made?
>>
>>>> No Ste, that's not what we're "now saying". The moderators have
>>>> _alway
>>> s_
>>>> intervened at their discretion to reject posts which have a
>>>> hurtful, sarcastic, personalised or otherwise inappropriate tone,
>>>> and we will continue to do so.
>>
>>> "We're in charge here, now belt up!" Well that's me told. ;)
>>
>> ITYWF that a considerable proportion of the regular users have heard
>> this point discussed before (quite recently actually) and a most of
>> those commenting agree with the moderators. So all you are being
>> told is that this is established group moderation policy and
>> unlikely to be changed unless a lot more people take up your point
>> of view.
>
> I respect that Percy. I don't necessarily agree, but I've said my
> piece and that's that. And what I said above wasn't a sarcastic dig
> (in case it came across like that), it was just a slightly more
> comical reinterpretation of what was actually said, and was not a
> reflection of any hard feelings; I like laughing almost as much as I
> like rhetoric.
>

Thanks for expressing your point of view - and I do value your contributions 
to each debate, Ste.

"Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
news:7kov5uF39jh5aU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ste wrote:
>> On 27 Oct, 18:08, "The Todal"  wrote:
>
>>> You and Norman might actually enjoy being sarcastic towards each other
>>> and might dislike your posts being characterised as hurtful/abusive
>>> because you are both thick-skinned. To that, I'd say you set a bad
>>> example to other posters.
>>
>> I know that's an issue you have to balance, but surely one should err
>> on the side of allowing discussion
>
> Nobody is prohibiting discussion, including statements of disagreement. 
> It's the calculated hint of disdain which we would like to discourage, as 
> it often leads to angry, personally hostile exchanges.

Not everyone is as sensitive as you are Steve.

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:582a18cd-e7b7-4a2d-a110-1e3571f117dc@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 27 Oct, 20:12, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > And frankly I'm quite surprised at the reaction here. Are we now
> > saying that moderation is justified not because a post uses outright
> > insulting or abusive language, but simply because a moderator doesn't
> > like the tone in which a legitimate point is made?
>
> No Ste, that's not what we're "now saying". The moderators have _always_
> intervened at their discretion to reject posts which have a hurtful,
> sarcastic, personalised or otherwise inappropriate tone, and we will
> continue to do so.

--"We're in charge here, now belt up!" Well that's me told. ;)


How dare you criticise the moderator! ;-)

Mr Benn wrote:
> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message
> news:7kov5uF39jh5aU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Ste wrote:
>>> On 27 Oct, 18:08, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>
>>>> You and Norman might actually enjoy being sarcastic towards each other
>>>> and might dislike your posts being characterised as hurtful/abusive
>>>> because you are both thick-skinned. To that, I'd say you set a bad
>>>> example to other posters.
>>>
>>> I know that's an issue you have to balance, but surely one should err
>>> on the side of allowing discussion
>>
>> Nobody is prohibiting discussion, including statements of disagreement.
>> It's the calculated hint of disdain which we would like to discourage,
>> as it often leads to angry, personally hostile exchanges.
>
> Not everyone is as sensitive as you are Steve.

True, but equally a good number are *more* sensitive than me.
I'm a middling sort of chap, on the spectrum of flame-proofness...

On 28 Oct, 16:16, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
> Mr Benn wrote:
> > "Steve Walker"  wrote in message
> >news:7kov5uF39jh5aU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> Ste wrote:
> >>> On 27 Oct, 18:08, "The Todal"  wrote:
>
> >>>> You and Norman might actually enjoy being sarcastic towards each other
> >>>> and might dislike your posts being characterised as hurtful/abusive
> >>>> because you are both thick-skinned. To that, I'd say you set a bad
> >>>> example to other posters.
>
> >>> I know that's an issue you have to balance, but surely one should err
> >>> on the side of allowing discussion
>
> >> Nobody is prohibiting discussion, including statements of disagreement.
> >> It's the calculated hint of disdain which we would like to discourage,
> >> as it often leads to angry, personally hostile exchanges.
>
> > Not everyone is as sensitive as you are Steve.
>
> True, but equally a good number are *more* sensitive than me.
> I'm a middling sort of chap, on the spectrum of flame-proofness...

According to a wide variety of research, people always perceive
themselves as "middling types" whenever they are asked to place
themselves relative to others.

"Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
news:7kr93eF36nkavU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mr Benn wrote:
>> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message
>> news:7kov5uF39jh5aU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Ste wrote:
>>>> On 27 Oct, 18:08, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You and Norman might actually enjoy being sarcastic towards each other
>>>>> and might dislike your posts being characterised as hurtful/abusive
>>>>> because you are both thick-skinned. To that, I'd say you set a bad
>>>>> example to other posters.
>>>>
>>>> I know that's an issue you have to balance, but surely one should err
>>>> on the side of allowing discussion
>>>
>>> Nobody is prohibiting discussion, including statements of disagreement.
>>> It's the calculated hint of disdain which we would like to discourage,
>>> as it often leads to angry, personally hostile exchanges.
>>
>> Not everyone is as sensitive as you are Steve.
>
> True, but equally a good number are *more* sensitive than me.
> I'm a middling sort of chap, on the spectrum of flame-proofness...

Maybe our sensitivity varies from day to day.  And our perception of how 
angry or sarcastic we may sound to others, probably varies from day to day.

I didn't want Ste to think he was being singled out for criticism or that 
his contributions were unwelcome, at any rate.  The moderators have to 
prevent arguments building up into flame wars and it will always be 
difficult to determine who should be allowed to have the last word at any 
point.  You can see how it could go:

A: Go and look up specific performance!
B:  I have done. So what?
A:  You agree that a court can order specific performance of a contract?
B:  Of course I do. So what?
A: I can't understand why you seem to have a mental block about this.
B: I just can't see the relevance.

etc, etc.

In general the moderators don't try to take over a thread by saying "come 
on, people, wrap it up. Let's have your final closing submissions and we'll 
close this subject" but I suppose it's an option. I'd be inclined to go with 
"insufficient new material" instead of "abusive/hurtful".

The Todal wrote:
> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message
> news:7kr93eF36nkavU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Mr Benn wrote:
>>> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message
>>> news:7kov5uF39jh5aU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Ste wrote:
>>>>> On 27 Oct, 18:08, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> You and Norman might actually enjoy being sarcastic towards each
>>>>>> other and might dislike your posts being characterised as
>>>>>> hurtful/abusive because you are both thick-skinned. To that, I'd
>>>>>> say you set a bad example to other posters.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that's an issue you have to balance, but surely one should err
>>>>> on the side of allowing discussion
>>>>
>>>> Nobody is prohibiting discussion, including statements of
>>>> disagreement. It's the calculated hint of disdain which we would like
>>>> to discourage, as it often leads to angry, personally hostile
>>>> exchanges.
>>>
>>> Not everyone is as sensitive as you are Steve.
>>
>> True, but equally a good number are *more* sensitive than me.
>> I'm a middling sort of chap, on the spectrum of flame-proofness...
>
> Maybe our sensitivity varies from day to day.  And our perception of how
> angry or sarcastic we may sound to others, probably varies from day to
> day.
> I didn't want Ste to think he was being singled out for criticism or that
> his contributions were unwelcome, at any rate.

Absolutely - he's a stalwart of the group, and much appreciated.

Ste wrote:
> On 28 Oct, 16:16, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
>> Mr Benn wrote:
>>> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message
>>> Not everyone is as sensitive as you are Steve.
>>
>> True, but equally a good number are *more* sensitive than me.
>> I'm a middling sort of chap, on the spectrum of flame-proofness...
>
> According to a wide variety of research, people always perceive
> themselves as "middling types" whenever they are asked to place
> themselves relative to others.

Not always - I believe that 80% of us believe we are 'above average' 
drivers, for example.

"Steve Walker"  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

> Not always - I believe that 80% of us believe we are 'above average'
> drivers, for example.

Umm, let's not forget that somewhere considerably north of 90% of us have 
an "above average" number of legs.

On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:31:58 -0700 (PDT), Ste 
wrote:

>Was just looking through the reject pile and noticed Norman's post:
>
>http://www.moderation.org.uk/3display_post.php?pst_id=80961&returnto=3displayulm.php
>
>That seems like a bit of hair-trigger decision. Norman raised a
>legitimate point that could be answered, and I can't see how his post
>was abusive at all - and heaven forbid guys who are regulars can't
>between themselves use a forceful or rhetorical tone.
>
>Like I've said before, if a post contains even a scintilla of
>legitimate material, then I'd prefer the moderators to allow the post
>rather than attempt to spare my feelings.


You should have said somewhere that it was a uk.legal.moderated post -
in order to differentiate if from a possible uk.rec.cycling.moderated.


Oh - hang on - no need - they don't publish the text of rejected posts
to uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Can't understand why.

On 28 Oct, 17:51, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 28 Oct, 16:16, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
> >> Mr Benn wrote:
> >>> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message
> >>> Not everyone is as sensitive as you are Steve.
>
> >> True, but equally a good number are *more* sensitive than me.
> >> I'm a middling sort of chap, on the spectrum of flame-proofness...
>
> > According to a wide variety of research, people always perceive
> > themselves as "middling types" whenever they are asked to place
> > themselves relative to others.
>
> Not always - I believe that 80% of us believe we are 'above average'
> drivers, for example.

Yes, I should have said "people often perceive...", although here the
weighting towards one extreme (i.e. towards brilliance) is probably
due to all kinds of other cognitive and perceptual biases (people
probably tend to start in their minds at "average", and then they
think of specific attributes about themselves which suggest
exceptional driving skill, and then use that to justify an increment
on "average").

Ste wrote:
> On 28 Oct, 17:51, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>> On 28 Oct, 16:16, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
>>>> Mr Benn wrote:
>>>>> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message
>>>>> Not everyone is as sensitive as you are Steve.
>>
>>>> True, but equally a good number are *more* sensitive than me.
>>>> I'm a middling sort of chap, on the spectrum of flame-proofness...
>>
>>> According to a wide variety of research, people always perceive
>>> themselves as "middling types" whenever they are asked to place
>>> themselves relative to others.
>>
>> Not always - I believe that 80% of us believe we are 'above average'
>> drivers, for example.
>
> Yes, I should have said "people often perceive...", although here the
> weighting towards one extreme (i.e. towards brilliance) is probably
> due to all kinds of other cognitive and perceptual biases (people
> probably tend to start in their minds at "average", and then they
> think of specific attributes about themselves which suggest
> exceptional driving skill, and then use that to justify an increment
> on "average").

Possibly so.   I think the key difference is anonymity.  Ask a bloke whether 
he's cleverer than the average crowd at his pub, or a better driver, etc. 
Anonymously he'll say yes, but publicly he'd stick to 'middling' as the safe 
line.

Which raises the question whether my answer above was honest, or just 
calculated to be inoffensive to my peers....  :o)

On 28 Oct 2009 18:08:18 GMT, Adrian  wrote:

>> Not always - I believe that 80% of us believe we are 'above average'
>> drivers, for example.
>
>Umm, let's not forget that somewhere considerably north of 90% of us have 
>an "above average" number of legs.

Irrelevant. No humans have anything other than two legs other than
through some illness or injury.  You need to read up on the
Dunning-Kruger hypothesis.

Here are a few study outcomes:

*  A survey of British motorists[1] found that:
  o 40% rated the overall standard of driving as bad but only 2% rated
    their own driving as bad
  o 24% rated the overall standard of driving as good, but 75% rated 
    their own standard as good 
* An attempt to research ways of correcting drivers' overestimate of
  their skills failed due to the unwillingness of drivers to accept
  even the most obvious driving errors.[2]
* A survey of motorway drivers[3] found that:
  o on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (good), they rated themselves as an
    average 3.9 with other drivers being rated as 2.7.
  o 39% admitted having "nodded off" on the motorway
  o one third underestimated safe stopping distances. 
* Up to 80% of drivers surveyed rate themselves "above average" on a
  number of important characteristics.[4]
* Study subjects were asked about their competence as drivers in
  relation to a group of drivers. The results showed that a majority
  of subjects regarded themselves as more skillful and less risky than
  the average driver in each group respectively.[5] 

There is only one reasonable conclusion, and it's not that driver
skill exhibits some unique distribution curve.

In fact, I'm not aware of any study which investigates this issue
which has concluded anything other than that most drivers overestimate
their own skill.  Feel free to point me to one if you can find it.

<http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Road_safety/Overestimation_of_skill>

[1]. Lex report on motoring, Lex Group, 1989
[2]. Davis, Death on the Streets, ch.2 ref. 18
[3]. Gallup, for General Accident, June 1989
[4]. Comparative perceptions of driver ability— A confirmation and
expansion, Iain A. McCormick, Frank H. Walkey and Dianne E. Green,
Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 18, Issue 3, June 1986, Pages
205-208
[5]. Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than
our fellow drivers? Acta Psychologica, 47, 143-148.


 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:41:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:


<snip absolute twaddle>

 
>Guy


I am sorry to say this - please will you just fuck off.

This group is uk.net.news.moderation - that bucket load of shite which
you just dropped has absolutely no place whatsoever in this current
discussion.

In fact - neither do you.

What you say there is totally  irrelevant.

In fact - so are you.

Why not go back to your little railway shed.

--          

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)

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

> I'm not aware

Agreed.

In message , "Just zis Guy, 
you know?"  writes
>There is only one reasonable conclusion, and it's not that driver
>skill exhibits some unique distribution curve.
>
>In fact, I'm not aware of any study which investigates this issue
>which has concluded anything other than that most drivers overestimate
>their own skill.  Feel free to point me to one if you can find it.

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Lake_Wobegon_effect

-- 
< Paul >

In message , Steve Walker 
 writes
>Not always - I believe that 80% of us believe we are 'above average'
>drivers, for example.

I certainly am - which is why I've not driven since 1986!

-- 
< Paul >

"jms"  wrote in message 
news:84ihe5dokjlmb4svdf0m7mgtdta0u5j8kl@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:41:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>  wrote:
>
>
> <snip absolute twaddle>
>
>
>>Guy
>
>
> I am sorry to say this - please will you just fuck off.

Couldn't you just *not read* his posts or even add him to your killfile? I 
quite enjoyed his statistics which were relevant to the post he was 
commenting on even if off topic for this group.

This group seems to have become a massive gripe-fest, and the anger and 
animosity (to which I may myself have added by one angry post I made 
yesterday) will probably be counter-productive.  A group that was set up to 
discuss moderation policy and the pros and cons of certain moderation 
decisions will probably end up being ignored by the new moderators of urcm 
because they can't see the signals for the noise and can't tell what is a 
serious question and what is an attempt to bait another poster.

The Todal wrote:

> This group seems to have become a massive gripe-fest, and the anger and 
> animosity (to which I may myself have added by one angry post I made 
> yesterday) will probably be counter-productive.  A group that was set up to 
> discuss moderation policy and the pros and cons of certain moderation 
> decisions will probably end up being ignored by the new moderators of urcm 
> because they can't see the signals for the noise and can't tell what is a 
> serious question and what is an attempt to bait another poster.

This sort of nonse is, of course, a lot of the reason why urcm came to
exist in the first place (urc got to be full of it).

(While there still isn't a proper definition of "trolling" you should
now have seen enough examples to get a reasonable feel, even if it's a
subjective one.)

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/

On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:10:51 +0000
Peter Clinch  wrote:

> (While there still isn't a proper definition of "trolling" you should
> now have seen enough examples to get a reasonable feel, even if it's a
> subjective one.)
> 
I don't think this bickering, sniping and whinging should be classed as
trolling, although it's just as tedious and predictable.

On 2009-10-29, The Todal  wrote:
>
> "jms"  wrote in message 
> news:84ihe5dokjlmb4svdf0m7mgtdta0u5j8kl@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:41:42 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip absolute twaddle>
>>
>>
>>>Guy
>>
>>
>> I am sorry to say this - please will you just fuck off.
>
> Couldn't you just *not read* his posts or even add him to your killfile? I 
> quite enjoyed his statistics which were relevant to the post he was 
> commenting on even if off topic for this group.
>
> This group seems to have become a massive gripe-fest, and the anger and 
> animosity (to which I may myself have added by one angry post I made 
> yesterday) will probably be counter-productive.  A group that was set up to 
> discuss moderation policy and the pros and cons of certain moderation 
> decisions will probably end up being ignored by the new moderators of urcm 
> because they can't see the signals for the noise and can't tell what is a 
> serious question and what is an attempt to bait another poster.

I propose we stop all this crap once and for all by starting up
uk.net.news.moderation.moderated, and
uk.net.news.moderation.moderated.moderation where people can discuss
rejected posts to unnmm.

Get your votes in people.

On 29 Oct, 22:08, Ben C  wrote:
> On 2009-10-29, The Todal  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "jms"  wrote in message
> >news:84ihe5dokjlmb4svdf0m7mgtdta0u5j8kl@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:41:42 퍍, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> >>  wrote:
>
> >> <snip absolute twaddle>
>
> >>>Guy
>
> >> I am sorry to say this - please will you just fuck off.
>
> > Couldn't you just *not read* his posts or even add him to your killfile? I
> > quite enjoyed his statistics which were relevant to the post he was
> > commenting on even if off topic for this group.
>
> > This group seems to have become a massive gripe-fest, and the anger and
> > animosity (to which I may myself have added by one angry post I made
> > yesterday) will probably be counter-productive.  A group that was set up to
> > discuss moderation policy and the pros and cons of certain moderation
> > decisions will probably end up being ignored by the new moderators of urcm
> > because they can't see the signals for the noise and can't tell what is a
> > serious question and what is an attempt to bait another poster.
>
> I propose we stop all this crap once and for all by starting up
> uk.net.news.moderation.moderated, and
> uk.net.news.moderation.moderated.moderation where people can discuss
> rejected posts to unnmm.
>
> Get your votes in people.

It's incidents like this that shake violently my faith in democracy.

On 29 Oct, 10:58, "The Todal"  wrote:
>
> A group that was set up to
> discuss moderation policy and the pros and cons of certain moderation
> decisions will probably end up being ignored by the new moderators of urcm
> because they can't see the signals for the noise and can't tell what is a
> serious question and what is an attempt to bait another poster.

I wouldn't worry, honestly. We have a flush of activity from well
known ex-URC characters, but that is likely to die down in a very few
weeks. In the meantime those of us who are moderators on URCM are long
inured to this sort of behaviour - we've had to endure it on URC long
enough (and as consequence are probably ourselves more wary and
inclined to hostility than is necessarily justified).

Normal service on UNNM will be restored once the former URC trolls
have either reduced the new group 'to ratshit', or else given up in
disgust.