Message-ID: 

Describes in factual terms an initiative against unlit cyclists, but
adds a polemical statement that appears to assert that cyclists
(alone) are given a free pass; in fact the requirement to prove
remediation is also commonly used in the case of motor vehicle
defects.  Even if this were unique to cycling the statement that "you
don't need" to comply until you're caught is clearly bollocks; FPNs
are issued but plod have clearly decided that fixing the problem is
more important than gathering money in this instance.  Which I think
is probably a pretty reasonable stance.

Perhaps the mods could ask for further posts along the same lines to
be stripped of their subpontine component.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:01 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Message-ID: 
> 
> Describes in factual terms an initiative against unlit cyclists, but
> adds a polemical statement that appears to assert that cyclists (alone)
> are given a free pass; in fact the requirement to prove remediation is
> also commonly used in the case of motor vehicle defects.  Even if this
> were unique to cycling the statement that "you don't need" to comply
> until you're caught is clearly bollocks; FPNs are issued but plod have
> clearly decided that fixing the problem is more important than gathering
> money in this instance.  Which I think is probably a pretty reasonable
> stance.
> 
> Perhaps the mods could ask for further posts along the same lines to be
> stripped of their subpontine component.

Guy, I know Jesus urged us to be perfect, even as our father in heaven is 
perfect - but I fear that's beyond us. You will have to live with human 
fallibility.

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and 
every moderation decision is unexplained and final.

On 28 Oct 2009 06:55:06 GMT, Simon Brooke
<stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:01 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> Message-ID: 
>> 
>> Describes in factual terms an initiative against unlit cyclists, but
>> adds a polemical statement that appears to assert that cyclists (alone)
>> are given a free pass; in fact the requirement to prove remediation is
>> also commonly used in the case of motor vehicle defects.  Even if this
>> were unique to cycling the statement that "you don't need" to comply
>> until you're caught is clearly bollocks; FPNs are issued but plod have
>> clearly decided that fixing the problem is more important than gathering
>> money in this instance.  Which I think is probably a pretty reasonable
>> stance.
>> 
>> Perhaps the mods could ask for further posts along the same lines to be
>> stripped of their subpontine component.
>
>Guy, I know Jesus urged us to be perfect, even as our father in heaven is 
>perfect - but I fear that's beyond us. You will have to live with human 
>fallibility.

It was a constructive idea.  There is no reason for you to take it as
a criticism.  I was delighted to see that you took on my idea of
informing the group of some decisions and posted your 'papal
declaration'.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> Message-ID: 
> 
> Describes in factual terms an initiative against unlit cyclists,

Yes it does.

> but
> adds a polemical statement that appears to assert that cyclists
> (alone) are given a free pass; 

"Appears to assert" to you maybe.  But actually it is /actually/ (I 
should know) attempting to highlight the get out clause which is sadly 
missing in the enforcement of other technical regulations.

> in fact the requirement to prove
> remediation is also commonly used in the case of motor vehicle
> defects.  

So what?  This is a cycling newsgroup.  Your reply along those lines was 
blatantly off-charter, yet waved through in the blink of an eye.

> Even if this were unique to cycling the statement that "you
> don't need" to comply until you're caught is clearly bollocks; 

It is a fact.  Wait until you're caught, then buy some, and you pay no 
penalty.  It couldn't be clearer.  And I'm not saying that is a bad 
thing.  The same system could easily be applied to a whole range of 
other technical offences with the likely benefit of gradual compliance 
and goodwill, rather than the creation of scapegoats for victimless 
"crimes".

> FPNs
> are issued but plod have clearly decided that fixing the problem is
> more important than gathering money in this instance.  Which I think
> is probably a pretty reasonable stance.

Yes, so why not highlight it as a good idea?

> Perhaps the mods could ask for further posts along the same lines to
> be stripped of their subpontine component.

What is your agenda here?  To censor out personal opinion?  Just to 
censor out the personal opinion of a certain individual?  Or to censor 
out "wrong" opinions?

-- 
Matt B

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:01 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>Perhaps the mods could ask for further posts along the same lines to
>be stripped of their subpontine component.

To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
-- 
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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Describes in factual terms an initiative against unlit cyclists, but
> adds a polemical statement that appears to assert that cyclists
> (alone) are given a free pass; 

I think the salient point there is that "appears" is quite a 
subjective thing (and it's further worth relaising that from some 
persepctives the initiative isn't /against/ unlit riders as it's 
arguable it's doing them a favour).

Yes, it's quite possibly there quite deliberately and carefully 
worded as a wedge to try and be the thin end, but just becauuse a 
thread has been started doesn't mean explicitly trollish followups 
that try to force bogus comparisons between cyclists and other 
parties can't get thrown out.

> Perhaps the mods could ask for further posts along the same lines to
> be stripped of their subpontine component.

That's already happening to some extent: as exemplary evidence, 
note yesterdays post requesting dubious signatures to be re-worked.

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 Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:27:54 +0000, Matt B
 wrote:

>What is your agenda here?  To censor out personal opinion? 

No, it's to prevent trolling.  You've already demonstrated that you
have no idea why your own unique mix of cluelessness and pro-car
zealotry is a problem, I was kind of hoping the mods would be able to
display more Clue.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:30:18 +0000, Geoff Berrow
 wrote:

>To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!

The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:08:20 +0000, Peter Clinch
 wrote:

>Yes, it's quite possibly there quite deliberately and carefully 
>worded as a wedge to try and be the thin end, but just becauuse a 
>thread has been started doesn't mean explicitly trollish followups 
>that try to force bogus comparisons between cyclists and other 
>parties can't get thrown out.

Yes, this is a fair point.  I don't think Matt has the wit to actually
game the system, I think on reflection this was just another of his
clueless assertions which is easily proven wrong.  This has been done,
in the thread in question.  All the same, it did seem trollish to me
based on the history of MattB, but now I remember that everyone was
going to get a clean sheet so perhaps I should forget this.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> 
>> Describes in factual terms an initiative against unlit cyclists, but
>> adds a polemical statement that appears to assert that cyclists
>> (alone) are given a free pass; 
> 
> I think the salient point there is that "appears" is quite a subjective 
> thing (and it's further worth relaising that from some persepctives the 
> initiative isn't /against/ unlit riders as it's arguable it's doing them 
> a favour).

Absolutely.  What I wrote didn't attempt to say otherwise.

> Yes, it's quite possibly there quite deliberately and carefully worded 
> as a wedge to try and be the thin end, 

Paranoia creeping in here?  It was just straight highlighting of a good 
idea.  You are beginning to make me doubt my own motifs!  I applaud 
sound and fair regulations and condemn ill thought out and counter 
productive ones.

> but just becauuse a thread has 
> been started doesn't mean explicitly trollish followups that try to 
> force bogus comparisons between cyclists and other parties can't get 
> thrown out.

And here we have the nub.  Some cannot resist to attempt to drive wedges 
where wedges are not necessary.

>> Perhaps the mods could ask for further posts along the same lines to
>> be stripped of their subpontine component.
> 
> That's already happening to some extent: as exemplary evidence, note 
> yesterdays post requesting dubious signatures to be re-worked.

Be bold, apply some balance.  Reject a few of the inflammatory, and 
frankly spiteful, replies by some the the old URC guard.  Alternatively, 
approve some of the counter-posts.

-- 
Matt B

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:27:54 +0000, Matt B
>  wrote:
> 
>> What is your agenda here?  To censor out personal opinion? 
> 
> No, it's to prevent trolling.

By trolling?  You reply to an on-topic post about an interesting 
enforcement tactic by going off-topic and comparing it with a motoring 
example, presumably (clue in your stuff below) in the mistaken belief 
that I have some sort of motorist or motoring agenda here.

> You've already demonstrated that you
> have no idea why your own unique mix of cluelessness and pro-car
> zealotry is a problem, 

Which proves to me beyond doubt /your/ sheer arrogance.  Would you 
assume me to be a Hindu if I argued against anti-Hindu measures?  Would 
you assume me to be a Catholic if I argued for equal treatment of 
Catholics?  Why do you assume that I am any more pro-car than 
pro-pedestrian or pro-cyclist.

To me your irrational assumption tells me spades about your ability to 
process information rationally and dispassionately.

> I was kind of hoping the mods would be able to
> display more Clue.

Clue, with a hint of paranoia?

-- 
Matt B

Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:

> >To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
> 
> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.

Or people's failure to resist responding to it.

Daniele

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:08:20 +0000, Peter Clinch
>  wrote:
> 
>> Yes, it's quite possibly there quite deliberately and carefully 
>> worded as a wedge to try and be the thin end, but just becauuse a 
>> thread has been started doesn't mean explicitly trollish followups 
>> that try to force bogus comparisons between cyclists and other 
>> parties can't get thrown out.
> 
> Yes, this is a fair point.  

So where would that leave your stance?

> I don't think Matt has the wit to actually
> game the system, 

Not to be confused with has never dreamt of doing so.  And where does 
that leave the integrity of your case?

> I think on reflection this was just another of his
> clueless assertions which is easily proven wrong.  

Err, it is *you* who is making all the claims and assertions.  None of 
which has been accepted as "accurate" yet.

> This has been done,
> in the thread in question.  

What has?

> All the same, it did seem trollish to me

"Seem" and "to me" being the keys there.  Where does that leave the 
integrity of your powers of judgement?

> based on the history of MattB, but now I remember that everyone was
> going to get a clean sheet so perhaps I should forget this.

What "history"?  All I've ever done is stand the middle ground.  I do 
not condemn motorists for the system that they are saddled with, nor do 
I support calls for more, and more punitive, measures to regulate them. 
  But then neither do I do either of those things for pedestrians or 
cyclists either.

Why can't you accept that neutrality and fair-play to all sides is an 
option to deliver safe and comfortable roads?

-- 
Matt B

"D.M. Procida"  wrote in 
message 
news:1j8alrs.k0d0sz2nly9N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
> Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>
>> >To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>>
>> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
>
> Or people's failure to resist responding to it.
>

People seem to be bandying around the word "trolling" in the confident 
belief that they know what it means and that everyone else will know what it 
means.

In the context of a cycling newsgroup, can anyone have a go at defining 
"trolling"?   The word  seems to be based on techniques used by anglers when 
fishing, to attract fish. Perhaps the implication is that a troll is any 
post which, in your opinion, anyone would be really stupid to post a 
response to.  That involves quite a few value judgments.

If I post a controversial (but on topic) message and wait to see if anyone 
replies and gets drawn into a conversation with me, that's just standard 
usenet custom and practice, surely?

I don't see how any moderated group could have a rule to prohibit trolling, 
without defining the term. Sorry if that's very legalistic and boring.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:42:34 +0000, Matt B
 wrote:

>> No, it's to prevent trolling.

>By trolling?  You reply to an on-topic post about an interesting 
>enforcement tactic by going off-topic and comparing it with a motoring 
>example, presumably (clue in your stuff below) in the mistaken belief 
>that I have some sort of motorist or motoring agenda here.

Yada yada yada.  You said: "[FPNs] will apparently be cancelled if
evidence of the subsequent purchase of new lights is produced at a
police station. So, in effect, you don't need to comply with the
bicycle lights law there until after you have been caught breaking
it."

That is inaccurate (yes you do need to obey the law, otherwise why
would plod be stopping people in the first place?) and inflammatory
(presenting this as if it were in some way different to the way motor
vehicle defects are handled).

Still, I can fix this problem.  I will amend the scorefile to cover
all groups not just urc.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:44:05 +0000,
real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>
>> >To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>> 
>> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
>
>Or people's failure to resist responding to it.

I sketched a first reply to Troll B's post, then hit the delete button
before sending.  When I saw a moderator had replied to Troll B I
decided it must be OK for me to reply too.  The substance of the reply
I had sketched earlier went to Guy's post.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:42:34 +0000, Matt B
>  wrote:
> 
>>> No, it's to prevent trolling.
> 
>> By trolling?  You reply to an on-topic post about an interesting 
>> enforcement tactic by going off-topic and comparing it with a motoring 
>> example, presumably (clue in your stuff below) in the mistaken belief 
>> that I have some sort of motorist or motoring agenda here.
> 
> Yada yada yada.  You said: "[FPNs] will apparently be cancelled if
> evidence of the subsequent purchase of new lights is produced at a
> police station. So, in effect, you don't need to comply with the
> bicycle lights law there until after you have been caught breaking
> it."

Yes.  No mention of motor vehicles, their defects or even motorists I 
see.  Though judging by your tone you can see them in there somewhere.

> That is inaccurate (yes you do need to obey the law, otherwise why
> would plod be stopping people in the first place?) 

Do can break it, get caught, get a penalty for breaking it, buy lights, 
get a pardon.  And so what is the net result?

> and inflammatory
> (presenting this as if it were in some way different to the way motor
> vehicle defects are handled).

Please quote the bit where you see a comparison specifically with motor 
vehicles.

> Still, I can fix this problem.

I think you've said that before, but you /still/ seem to have it.

> I will amend the scorefile to cover
> all groups not just urc.

Good.  That might cut some of the unnecessary antagonism that you seem 
to generate.

-- 
Matt B

The Todal  wrote:

> >> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
> >
> > Or people's failure to resist responding to it.
> >
> 
> People seem to be bandying around the word "trolling" in the confident
> belief that they know what it means and that everyone else will know what it
> means.
> 
> In the context of a cycling newsgroup, can anyone have a go at defining
> "trolling"?   The word  seems to be based on techniques used by anglers when
> fishing, to attract fish. 

Yes - it involves dragging ('trolling') a shiny lure on a line behind a
boat. Because fish only have very little brains, it works quite well on
them. Often the line gets tangled up in the propellor and everything
gets into a dreadful mess and ruins everyone's day.

Trolling is about food - the food that's being caught and the fake food
of the lure - but in a complicated and internally-inconsistent
food-related sideways leap, we arrive at the injunction not to feed the
trolls, who as we know live under bridges and are fed by being responded
to. 

> If I post a controversial (but on topic) message and wait to see if anyone
> replies and gets drawn into a conversation with me, that's just standard
> usenet custom and practice, surely?

Yes. But if you were doing it for the purposes of inflaming (on a
.jewish newsgroup: "Why all the whining about the Holocaust? It was 65
frikkin' years ago!") it wouldn't a very desirable kind of practice.
 
> I don't see how any moderated group could have a rule to prohibit trolling,
> without defining the term. Sorry if that's very legalistic and boring.

I don't much like the term, but I think it's quite possible to have a
rule to exclude what looks like deliberate attempts at trouble-making.

Daniele

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:38 -0000,
    The Todal  wrote:
>
> "D.M. Procida"  wrote in 
> message 
> news:1j8alrs.k0d0sz2nly9N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
>> Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>>
>>> >To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>>>
>>> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
>>
>> Or people's failure to resist responding to it.
>>
>
> People seem to be bandying around the word "trolling" in the confident 
> belief that they know what it means and that everyone else will know what it 
> means.
>
> In the context of a cycling newsgroup, can anyone have a go at defining 
> "trolling"?   The word  seems to be based on techniques used by anglers when 
> fishing, to attract fish. Perhaps the implication is that a troll is any 
> post which, in your opinion, anyone would be really stupid to post a 
> response to.  That involves quite a few value judgments.
>
> If I post a controversial (but on topic) message and wait to see if anyone 
> replies and gets drawn into a conversation with me, that's just standard 
> usenet custom and practice, surely?
>

Yes this is normal usenet custom. But what happens in URC is that anyone
making point A will get reponse B. Response B should then generate
reponses to continue the discussion.

However, what then happens is that the person posting point A reposts it
to B and every other response to B.

This new A then generates a new set of B' (where B' differs from B only
in "I've already said this once")

These B' may then also trigger some discussion from people who didn't
see/reply to the original B. This lot then generate another load of A
posts which get B'' replies ("I've already said this twice before")

Ad nauseum.

Killfiles are updated but the person posting A doesn't like this. So now
the person posting point A starts posting it to every thread, whether
it's relevant or not. People who have killfiled the original threads
just based on the subject now get dragged in.

Unsurprisingly, the person posting A becomes the most prolific poster to
the group by a long way. The person posting A also starts using many
different aliases.

It's also unfortunate that the person/people posting point B are, for
the most part, sane and valuable contributors but they are obsessive
about point A and cannot let it go.


> I don't see how any moderated group could have a rule to prohibit trolling, 
> without defining the term. Sorry if that's very legalistic and boring. 
>
No. But it prohibits repetitive posting.

Tim.


-- 
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," 
and there was light.

  http://www.woodall.me.uk/

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> based on the history of MattB, but now I remember that everyone was
> going to get a clean sheet 

Up to a point, Lord Copper.  If you've committed a lot of offences 
in another place then as long as you don't commit them in urcm then 
that isn't factored in to whether your posts appear or not (or at 
least there is Best Effort for that to be the case).

However, if you show up exhibiting the same behaviour that caused 
much heat and little light elsewhere then it's not beyond the 
realms of possibility that that will result in your posts returned 
with a rejection for repetition on them.  I (and I suspect other 
mods) am not of the opinion that folk should be allowed to build up 
a history of heat with no light on urcm before I say "I've seen 
that all before, bin for repetition" and rejecting it if they 
already have such a reputation from elsewhere.
It's a bit like the FPNs: buy your lights as we ask and we'll 
forget you've been bad, don't buy them and meet this big, heavy 
book coming your way, or post things the mod team think will 
contribute to a useful, happy cycling group as per charter and we 
don't care what you've posted in the past, come here to do what has 
a historical track record of rubbing people up the wrong way and 
find your messages sent back to you.

(And if I reject in such a way I am not going to waste my time 
finding at least n references to the /exact/ same argument posted 
in the last x years on Usenet, I'm just going to say rejected for 
repetition)

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/

In message , "Just zis Guy, 
you know?"  writes
>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:42:34 +0000, Matt B
> wrote:
>
>>> No, it's to prevent trolling.
>
>>By trolling?  You reply to an on-topic post about an interesting
>>enforcement tactic by going off-topic and comparing it with a motoring
>>example, presumably (clue in your stuff below) in the mistaken belief
>>that I have some sort of motorist or motoring agenda here.
>
>Yada yada yada.  You said: "[FPNs] will apparently be cancelled if
>evidence of the subsequent purchase of new lights is produced at a
>police station. So, in effect, you don't need to comply with the
>bicycle lights law there until after you have been caught breaking
>it."
>
>That is inaccurate (yes you do need to obey the law, otherwise why
>would plod be stopping people in the first place?)

Ok, yes is incorrect in a legal sense. But I think you know exactly what 
Matt meant - you can get a FPN, get lights, have FPN wiped - the net 
effect 'in effect' is that you won't suffer legally by breaking the law 
even if you get caught.

anyway, even if it was inaccurate so what, that's not a reason for not 
allowing a post.

> and inflammatory
>(presenting this as if it were in some way different to the way motor
>vehicle defects are handled).

I can't see anything inflammatory about this. *You* have perceived some 
inflammatory comparison to the way motor defects are handled, but Matt 
never included any such reference, and I certainly didn't read his post 
in some way.

Nor has the thread lead to any 'trolling' or stupid point scoring that 
it probably would have got on urc. (though I've no idea what posts if 
any the mods may have stopped, but then that si the one of the points of 
urcm))

>
>Still, I can fix this problem.  I will amend the scorefile to cover
>all groups not just urc.
>

Well, that will be a relief. Then maybe you will stop picking fights 
with/about people because you should have learnt to ignore a long time 
ago if it bothered you that much.

Matt tended to annoy me on urc with a lot of his posts, but this one 
seemed to be fine to me.
-- 
Chris French

In message , "Just zis Guy, 
you know?"  writes
>All the same, it did seem trollish to me
>based on the history of MattB, but now I remember that everyone was
>going to get a clean sheet so perhaps I should forget this.

Yup, just like have to forget about they way your behaviour in response 
to certain posters on urc contributed to the level of noise and crap on 
there
-- 
Chris French

On 28 Oct, 10:58, "The Todal"  wrote:

> I don't see how any moderated group could have a rule to prohibit trolling,
> without defining the term. Sorry if that's very legalistic and boring.

There is no rule prohibiting trolling. There is a directive that
'Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil,
pleasant, and of interest to cyclists.' That is all. Any claim that
there are different rules from those expressed in the charter is just
wilfully misleading, dishonest, and, I would suggest, trollish.

If a blob of glup can be trollish,. of course.

Response to Chris French:

> > and inflammatory
> >(presenting this as if it were in some way different to the way motor
> >vehicle defects are handled).  
> 
> I can't see anything inflammatory about this. *You* have perceived
> some inflammatory comparison to the way motor defects are handled,
> but Matt never included any such reference, and I certainly didn't
> read his post in some way.


I don't have the moderators' policy of starting everybody with a clean
sheet; taking into account MattB's posting history I thought it was
moderately inflammatory myself, and wondered if it was deliberately
testing a grey area.

Not including an explicit reference to a comparative group doesn't mean
that comparison is not implied.  If I posted a message saying simply
"$MINORITY is being given an easy ride", that could easily be
interpreted - rightly or wrongly - to mean that others are not.


-- 
Mark, UK.
War Starts At Midnight!

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:08:20 +0000
"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:27:54 +0000, Matt B
>  wrote:
> 
> >What is your agenda here?  To censor out personal opinion? 
> 
> No, it's to prevent trolling.  You've already demonstrated that you
> have no idea why your own unique mix of cluelessness and pro-car
> zealotry is a problem,

Pot-kettle springs to mind here.

"Simon Brooke"  wrote in message 
news:9d453ea6-245e-4a02-b790-1b55945224be@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Oct, 10:58, "The Todal"  wrote:
>
>> I don't see how any moderated group could have a rule to prohibit 
>> trolling,
>> without defining the term. Sorry if that's very legalistic and boring.
>
> There is no rule prohibiting trolling. There is a directive that
> 'Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil,
> pleasant, and of interest to cyclists.' That is all. Any claim that
> there are different rules from those expressed in the charter is just
> wilfully misleading, dishonest, and, I would suggest, trollish.
>
> If a blob of glup can be trollish,. of course.

Aha. You suggest that my own post could be a troll.  What a pity our 
civilised discussions should be blighted by such lack of trust.  I haven't 
bothered to look at your charter or your moderation rules. I was merely 
responding to Guy's post where he said: "The point of the moderated group is 
that it does not include trolling".

I suppose Guy might be wilfully misleading, dishonest and trollish. Or he 
might be explaining what he believes to be the raison d'etre of the 
moderated group. I suppose it must depend on whether you like Guy or not.  I 
like him.  We have a shared interest in the late works of Schubert.

"Tim Woodall"  wrote in message 
news:slrnhegcsd.9o3.devnull@feynman.home.woodall.me.uk...
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:38 -0000,
>    The Todal  wrote:
>>
>> "D.M. Procida"  wrote in
>> message
>> news:1j8alrs.k0d0sz2nly9N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
>>> Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>>>
>>>> >To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>>>>
>>>> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
>>>
>>> Or people's failure to resist responding to it.
>>>
>>
>> People seem to be bandying around the word "trolling" in the confident
>> belief that they know what it means and that everyone else will know what 
>> it
>> means.
>>
>> In the context of a cycling newsgroup, can anyone have a go at defining
>> "trolling"?   The word  seems to be based on techniques used by anglers 
>> when
>> fishing, to attract fish. Perhaps the implication is that a troll is any
>> post which, in your opinion, anyone would be really stupid to post a
>> response to.  That involves quite a few value judgments.
>>
>> If I post a controversial (but on topic) message and wait to see if 
>> anyone
>> replies and gets drawn into a conversation with me, that's just standard
>> usenet custom and practice, surely?
>>
>
> Yes this is normal usenet custom. But what happens in URC is that anyone
> making point A will get reponse B. Response B should then generate
> reponses to continue the discussion.
>
> However, what then happens is that the person posting point A reposts it
> to B and every other response to B.
>
> This new A then generates a new set of B' (where B' differs from B only
> in "I've already said this once")
>
> These B' may then also trigger some discussion from people who didn't
> see/reply to the original B. This lot then generate another load of A
> posts which get B'' replies ("I've already said this twice before")
>
> Ad nauseum.
>
> Killfiles are updated but the person posting A doesn't like this. So now
> the person posting point A starts posting it to every thread, whether
> it's relevant or not. People who have killfiled the original threads
> just based on the subject now get dragged in.
>
> Unsurprisingly, the person posting A becomes the most prolific poster to
> the group by a long way. The person posting A also starts using many
> different aliases.
>
> It's also unfortunate that the person/people posting point B are, for
> the most part, sane and valuable contributors but they are obsessive
> about point A and cannot let it go.
>
>
>> I don't see how any moderated group could have a rule to prohibit 
>> trolling,
>> without defining the term. Sorry if that's very legalistic and boring.
>>
> No. But it prohibits repetitive posting.

I think we got there in the end. A ban on repetitive posting of the same 
point. That would do the trick. So you don't ban the first post (despite 
your suspicions that it might be a troll) but you ban the followups when 
they begin to get bullying and repetitive.

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
news:016ge59uqb8mkvddtanj66otiaqml3agkk@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:30:18 +0000, Geoff Berrow
>  wrote:
>
>>To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>
> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.

These are the guidelines?

"The following are prohibited:
 * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
 * Personal abuse; flames;
 * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
   discussion".

With all due respect to everyone involved, I think it would be wrong to 
reject a post for being repetitive merely because it has already been posted 
in the unmoderated group.  There was, I think, a time when moderators in 
uk.legal.moderated were rejecting posts and commenting "your question has 
already been answered in uk.legal" but that isn't our policy now.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:10:36 -0000, The Todal wrote:

> "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
> news:016ge59uqb8mkvddtanj66otiaqml3agkk@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:30:18 +0000, Geoff Berrow
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>>
>> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
> 
> These are the guidelines?
> 
> "The following are prohibited:
>  * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
>  * Personal abuse; flames;
>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>    discussion".
> 
> With all due respect to everyone involved, I think it would be wrong to 
> reject a post for being repetitive merely because it has already been posted 
> in the unmoderated group.  

You're just like my missus. She will insist on answering questions that
haven't been asked - or in this case commenting on issues that haven't been
raised! 


-- 
The Wanderer

There is no place like 127.0.0.1

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:10:36 -0000, The Todal  wrote:
>
> "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message 
> news:016ge59uqb8mkvddtanj66otiaqml3agkk@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:30:18 +0000, Geoff Berrow
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>>
>> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
>
> These are the guidelines?
>
> "The following are prohibited:
>  * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
>  * Personal abuse; flames;
>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>    discussion".
>
> With all due respect to everyone involved, I think it would be wrong to 
> reject a post for being repetitive merely because it has already been posted 
> in the unmoderated group.  There was, I think, a time when moderators in 
> uk.legal.moderated were rejecting posts and commenting "your question has 
> already been answered in uk.legal" but that isn't our policy now.

OK the ulm people have had time and space to find out what worked for
them and the sky never fell down.  urcm is a slightly different
proposition and we have to do the same.  Even if we get it wrong and
have to change policy (like ulm did) the sky isn't going to fall down 
this time either.  I am all for giving people enough rope to hang
themselves, but in my book you don't need much rope, and in some cases
repetitious posting, esp. if off-topic (or tangentially related to
cycling, but really about other things) can be spotted pretty early.

-- 
Andy Leighton => andyl@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" 
   - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:50:33 -0000,
    The Todal  wrote:
>> No. But it prohibits repetitive posting.
>
> I think we got there in the end. A ban on repetitive posting of the same 
> point. That would do the trick. So you don't ban the first post (despite 
> your suspicions that it might be a troll) but you ban the followups when 
> they begin to get bullying and repetitive. 
>

Yes. However I suspect the moderators will be fairly quick to block
posts that indicate that the poster has done no research at all on the
subject. A carefully worded question that appears from a newbie might be
allowed through. A blanket assertion (from a newbie or otherwise) may
well be blocked as needlessly inflamatory and some guideance given to
check out similar threads in URC in the past.

We will do helmets in URC eventually. It is an interesting topic because
nobody knows why we get the real world results that we do get and so
it's a ripe ground for hypotheses and URCM seems to have a large number
of practicing scientists and science trained members who understand
experimental design and confidence tests. But that will most likely
happen when a new paper is published with some (new) interesting
results. An inflamatory first post is not going to get people into the
right frame of mind for that sort of discussion.

Tim.

-- 
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," 
and there was light.

  http://www.woodall.me.uk/

"The Wanderer"  wrote in message 
news:urngsxs322nz$.pko8b13jpvs6$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:10:36 -0000, The Todal wrote:
>
>> "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message
>> news:016ge59uqb8mkvddtanj66otiaqml3agkk@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:30:18 +0000, Geoff Berrow
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>>>
>>> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
>>
>> These are the guidelines?
>>
>> "The following are prohibited:
>>  * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
>>  * Personal abuse; flames;
>>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>>    discussion".
>>
>> With all due respect to everyone involved, I think it would be wrong to
>> reject a post for being repetitive merely because it has already been 
>> posted
>> in the unmoderated group.
>
> You're just like my missus. She will insist on answering questions that
> haven't been asked - or in this case commenting on issues that haven't 
> been
> raised!

They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the 
moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand how 
the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll is).

Compare and contrast the above moderation guidelines with the Rationale (see 
below). It may be that the guidelines are currently a bit too woolly and 
actually everyone now has to put their faith in the moderators and trust 
their judgment on what is or is not a troll.    One reason why we don't ban 
trolling in uk.legal.moderated is that I don't know how it could be defined. 
I'd be happy to learn from others, in case we could usefully amend our own 
moderation guidelines.

RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated

uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from trolling,
nym-shifting and forgeries.  Many of these posts are abusive and
hostile to cycling.  There are even credible allegations of real-world
harassment such as abusive late night phone calls.  Repetitive flamage
now constitutes 50-75% of the group by number of articles.  This
ongoing and worsening problem has been making the group nearly
unuseable for ordinary discussion; many posters have already left.

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:7kr8kfF3avk0oU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "The Wanderer"  wrote in message 
> news:urngsxs322nz$.pko8b13jpvs6$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:10:36 -0000, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message
>>> news:016ge59uqb8mkvddtanj66otiaqml3agkk@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:30:18 +0000, Geoff Berrow
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>>>>
>>>> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
>>>
>>> These are the guidelines?
>>>
>>> "The following are prohibited:
>>>  * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
>>>  * Personal abuse; flames;
>>>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>>>    discussion".
>>>
>>> With all due respect to everyone involved, I think it would be wrong to
>>> reject a post for being repetitive merely because it has already been 
>>> posted
>>> in the unmoderated group.
>>
>> You're just like my missus. She will insist on answering questions that
>> haven't been asked - or in this case commenting on issues that haven't 
>> been
>> raised!
>
> They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the 
> moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand how 
> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll is).

Are you doing the old-and-doddery judge thing of saying "What is this 
Internet?"?

Fortunately the moderation guidelines don't attempt to define what a troll 
is. They've been drafted to address the trolling behaviour we've seen, but 
in terms of the behaviour itself, not the troll label.

And I think that either Guy's assertion or your interpretation of it (not 
sure which, CBA to check, fight it out between you if you must) is slightly 
wrong : it's not that it will prevent trolling, it's that it will prevent 
successful trolling. A finely crafted troll should be almost 
indistinguishable from a post not intended to cause disruption.

Obviously the more abusive behaviour which has also been a problem on URC 
would also get dealt with in a similar manner to ulm. Though we've been 
using "Troll" to cover both behaviours, it's probably not strictly correct - 
the abusive posters could just be referred to as abusive if you wanted.

> Compare and contrast the above moderation guidelines with the Rationale 
> (see below). It may be that the guidelines are currently a bit too woolly 
> and actually everyone now has to put their faith in the moderators and 
> trust their judgment on what is or is not a troll.    One reason why we 
> don't ban trolling in uk.legal.moderated is that I don't know how it could 
> be defined. I'd be happy to learn from others, in case we could usefully 
> amend our own moderation guidelines.

I don't think you need to ban trolling, just the poor behaviour which 
results - and you've already got that covered, as has urcm.

> RATIONALE: uk.rec.cycling.moderated
>
> uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from trolling,
> nym-shifting and forgeries.  Many of these posts are abusive and
> hostile to cycling.  There are even credible allegations of real-world
> harassment such as abusive late night phone calls.  Repetitive flamage
> now constitutes 50-75% of the group by number of articles.  This
> ongoing and worsening problem has been making the group nearly
> unuseable for ordinary discussion; many posters have already left.

Rationale != charter and mod guidelines.

The latter are rather more tightly defined.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:09:33 -0000, The Todal wrote:

> "The Wanderer"  wrote in message 
> news:urngsxs322nz$.pko8b13jpvs6$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:10:36 -0000, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message
>>> news:016ge59uqb8mkvddtanj66otiaqml3agkk@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:30:18 +0000, Geoff Berrow
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>>>>
>>>> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
>>>
>>> These are the guidelines?
>>>
>>> "The following are prohibited:
>>>  * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
>>>  * Personal abuse; flames;
>>>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>>>    discussion".
>>>
>>> With all due respect to everyone involved, I think it would be wrong to
>>> reject a post for being repetitive merely because it has already been 
>>> posted
>>> in the unmoderated group.
>>
>> You're just like my missus. She will insist on answering questions that
>> haven't been asked - or in this case commenting on issues that haven't 
>> been
>> raised!
> 
> They have been raised, I thought, 

I owe you an apology I missed the smiley on the end of my last post

because of Guy's assertion that the 
> moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand how 
> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling 

The fact that a moderated group exists is probably sufficient to deter most
from trolling.

> (and what a troll is).

Now I suspect you're pretending to be an out of touch member of the
judiciary.

Think rod, line, hook, bait, strike, gotcha! But you knew that, didn't you?


-- 
The Wanderer

I may be omniscient, but don't expect me to know everything.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:24:38 +0000, Chris French
 wrote:

>>That is inaccurate (yes you do need to obey the law, otherwise why
>>would plod be stopping people in the first place?)

>Ok, yes is incorrect in a legal sense. But I think you know exactly what 
>Matt meant - you can get a FPN, get lights, have FPN wiped - the net 
>effect 'in effect' is that you won't suffer legally by breaking the law 
>even if you get caught.

In exactly the same way as you can drive a motor vehicle with
defective lights, be stopped, issued with a defect notice, and if you
fail to provide evidence of remediation, you can be prosecuted.

>anyway, even if it was inaccurate so what, that's not a reason for not 
>allowing a post.

It is if the post is insinuating unequal treatment where there is no
such inequality.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:05:33 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
 wrote:

>However, what then happens is that the person posting point A reposts it
>to B and every other response to B.
>
>This new A then generates a new set of B' (where B' differs from B only
>in "I've already said this once")
>
>These B' may then also trigger some discussion from people who didn't
>see/reply to the original B. This lot then generate another load of A
>posts which get B'' replies ("I've already said this twice before")
>
>Ad nauseum.

Perfect!  It made me laugh while also causing me to mentally slap my
own wrists for doing the same.  Well done, sir.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

On 28 Oct, 16:09, "The Todal"  wrote:
>
> They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the
> moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand how
> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll is).

I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
self referential.

Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant trolling.
Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed offended
innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery. The problem is
we're old hands. I personally have been using Usenet for quarter of a
century; others of the moderation panel, I think, longer. We've seen
trolls beside whom the trolls of today are mere shadows. So you can be
as falsely naive as you want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye,
right'.

In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:29:38 +0000, Chris French
 wrote:

>Yup, just like have to forget about they way your behaviour in response 
>to certain posters on urc contributed to the level of noise and crap on 
>there

And I have put my hands up to that.  It is, however, a matter of
record that the attacks from those individuals outweigh my responses
by an order of magnitude, and continue whether I reply or not.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/

"The Wanderer"  wrote in message 
news:gk875znb4jx3.1kobmzdnxq85g.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:09:33 -0000, The Todal wrote:
>
>> "The Wanderer"  wrote in message
>> news:urngsxs322nz$.pko8b13jpvs6$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:10:36 -0000, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in message
>>>> news:016ge59uqb8mkvddtanj66otiaqml3agkk@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:30:18 +0000, Geoff Berrow
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>>>>>
>>>>> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
>>>>
>>>> These are the guidelines?
>>>>
>>>> "The following are prohibited:
>>>>  * Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;
>>>>  * Personal abuse; flames;
>>>>  * Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
>>>>    discussion".
>>>>
>>>> With all due respect to everyone involved, I think it would be wrong to
>>>> reject a post for being repetitive merely because it has already been
>>>> posted
>>>> in the unmoderated group.
>>>
>>> You're just like my missus. She will insist on answering questions that
>>> haven't been asked - or in this case commenting on issues that haven't
>>> been
>>> raised!
>>
>> They have been raised, I thought,
>
> I owe you an apology I missed the smiley on the end of my last post
>
> because of Guy's assertion that the
>> moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand 
>> how
>> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling
>
> The fact that a moderated group exists is probably sufficient to deter 
> most
> from trolling.
>
>> (and what a troll is).
>
> Now I suspect you're pretending to be an out of touch member of the
> judiciary.
>
> Think rod, line, hook, bait, strike, gotcha! But you knew that, didn't 
> you?

No.  I don't think we're getting anywhere with this.

If anyone uses the word "troll" in a post to ULM, I reject the post. I 
regard it as a gratuitous insult to anyone to accuse them of trolling. If 
the post is on topic, we accept it. If nobody has any useful followup, the 
thread dies.

"Simon Brooke"  wrote in message 
news:ee0ce9aa-5a74-47f5-88ca-9d508ea7ca7c@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Oct, 16:09, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>
>> They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the
>> moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand 
>> how
>> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll is).
>
> I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
> self referential.
>
> Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant trolling.
> Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed offended
> innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery. The problem is
> we're old hands. I personally have been using Usenet for quarter of a
> century; others of the moderation panel, I think, longer. We've seen
> trolls beside whom the trolls of today are mere shadows. So you can be
> as falsely naive as you want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye,
> right'.
>
> In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.

Okay, have it your way. In summary: sorry, old chap, but you're an arrogant 
tosser and you're certainly not fit to be a moderator.  Don't worry - I 
won't be posting to your group, though. Hope the rest of the team are better 
than you are, and that they swiftly see the sense in evicting you.

In uk.net.news.moderation, Simon Brooke  wrote:

>On 28 Oct, 16:09, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>
>> They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the
>> moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand how
>> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll is).
>
>I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
>self referential.
>
>Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant trolling.
>Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed offended
>innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery. The problem is
>we're old hands. I personally have been using Usenet for quarter of a
>century; others of the moderation panel, I think, longer. We've seen
>trolls beside whom the trolls of today are mere shadows. So you can be
>as falsely naive as you want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye,
>right'.
>
>In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.

Or, in summary: I've been doing this for so long and I have become so
bitter and cynical that I am now unable to tell trolling apart from
not-trolling.

-- 
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 Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:21:01 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>Message-ID: 
>
>Describes in factual terms an initiative against unlit cyclists, but
>adds a polemical statement that appears to assert that cyclists
>(alone) are given a free pass; in fact the requirement to prove
>remediation is also commonly used in the case of motor vehicle
>defects.  Even if this were unique to cycling the statement that "you
>don't need" to comply until you're caught is clearly bollocks; FPNs
>are issued but plod have clearly decided that fixing the problem is
>more important than gathering money in this instance.  Which I think
>is probably a pretty reasonable stance.
>
>Perhaps the mods could ask for further posts along the same lines to
>be stripped of their subpontine component.
> 
>Guy

ffs - What has it actually got to do with you:

Here is the actual post:

===========================================================

According to the local press[1], Oxford police will be dishing out £30
fixed penalty fines throughout November to cyclists who are not 
displaying appropriate lights in the dark.  These though will
apparently  be cancelled if evidence of the subsequent purchase of new
lights is  produced at a police station.

So, in effect, you don't need to comply with the bicycle lights law 
there until after you have been caught breaking it.

[1] 
http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/4703570.Police_launch_crackdown_on_cyclists/

================================================================



It is in a cycling newsgroup.

It is about cyclists.

There is nothing wrong with it - Oh - except for the fact that it
criticises cyclists.

What he says is true.

You do not have to use a light until you are caught - at which point
you are not penalised for breaking the law.

This is just the sort of post which you have previously called a
troll.

Either get in the real world, or why not fuck just off back to your
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)

Simon Brooke wrote:
> On 28 Oct, 16:09, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>
>> They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the
>> moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand
>> how the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll
>> is).
>
> I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
> self referential.
>
> Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant trolling.
> Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed offended
> innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery. The problem is
> we're old hands. I personally have been using Usenet for quarter of a
> century; others of the moderation panel, I think, longer. We've seen
> trolls beside whom the trolls of today are mere shadows. So you can be
> as falsely naive as you want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye,
> right'.
>
> In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.

I wonder if you are aware that Todal was a key co-founder of 
uk.legal.moderated, and remains a much valued senior moderator for that 
successful and popular group?      To accuse him of bad faith in this 
context is beyond the pale, and raises questions about your own judgement..

"Tony"  wrote in message 
news:hca1sp$ut7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> In uk.net.news.moderation, Simon Brooke  wrote:
>
>>On 28 Oct, 16:09, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>>
>>> They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the
>>> moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand 
>>> how
>>> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll is).
>>
>>I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
>>self referential.
>>
>>Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant trolling.
>>Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed offended
>>innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery. The problem is
>>we're old hands. I personally have been using Usenet for quarter of a
>>century; others of the moderation panel, I think, longer. We've seen
>>trolls beside whom the trolls of today are mere shadows. So you can be
>>as falsely naive as you want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye,
>>right'.
>>
>>In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.
>
> Or, in summary: I've been doing this for so long and I have become so
> bitter and cynical that I am now unable to tell trolling apart from
> not-trolling.

To be fair to Simon, he's not the only one who has dropped hints that The 
Todal is trolling. And currently it's not obvious that he isn't.

In uk.net.news.moderation, "Clive George"  wrote:

>"Tony"  wrote in message 
>news:hca1sp$ut7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Simon Brooke  wrote:
>>
>>>On 28 Oct, 16:09, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the
>>>> moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand 
>>>> how
>>>> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll is).
>>>
>>>I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
>>>self referential.
>>>
>>>Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant trolling.
>>>Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed offended
>>>innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery. The problem is
>>>we're old hands. I personally have been using Usenet for quarter of a
>>>century; others of the moderation panel, I think, longer. We've seen
>>>trolls beside whom the trolls of today are mere shadows. So you can be
>>>as falsely naive as you want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye,
>>>right'.
>>>
>>>In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.
>>
>> Or, in summary: I've been doing this for so long and I have become so
>> bitter and cynical that I am now unable to tell trolling apart from
>> not-trolling.
>
>To be fair to Simon, he's not the only one who has dropped hints that The 
>Todal is trolling. And currently it's not obvious that he isn't. 

Maybe, however I read Simon's response and the whole thing reeks of
arrogance.  I think my summary is a legitimate way of reading what was
written and it would do Simon well to remember that 25 years of baggage
isn't always a good thing.  Sometimes you need to keep a fresh eye on
what's going on without that 25 years of history bogging you down.

-- 
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 ]

"Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
news:7krgp0F3b4tapU1@mid.individual.net...

> I wonder if you are aware that Todal was a key co-founder of 
> uk.legal.moderated, and remains a much valued senior moderator for that 
> successful and popular group?

All that shouldn't preclude him from having a sense of mischief, and 
occasionally exercising it in appropriate places.

> To accuse him of bad faith in this context is beyond the pale, and raises 
> questions about your own judgement..

My opinion of the Todal is definitely tempered by seeing some of his 
judgement - he's not infallible by any means.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:06:55 -0000, The Todal wrote:

> "The Wanderer"  wrote in message 
> news:gk875znb4jx3.1kobmzdnxq85g.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:09:33 -0000, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> "The Wanderer"  wrote in message
>>> news:urngsxs322nz$.pko8b13jpvs6$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:10:36 -0000, The Todal wrote:



>>> moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand 
>>> how
>>> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling
>>
>> The fact that a moderated group exists is probably sufficient to deter 
>> most
>> from trolling.
>>
>>> (and what a troll is).
>>
>> Now I suspect you're pretending to be an out of touch member of the
>> judiciary.
>>
>> Think rod, line, hook, bait, strike, gotcha! But you knew that, didn't 
>> you?
> 
> No.  I don't think we're getting anywhere with this.

Hmm, your idea of a troll (posting) and my idea of a troll seem to be quite
disparate. IMO a good troll would start off with a seemingly innocuous post
that is likely to engender a sequence of polarised views that will
ultimately lead to a flame war.

The nature of ulm more or less stops this type of thread very quickly.

> If anyone uses the word "troll" in a post to ULM, I reject the post. I 
> regard it as a gratuitous insult to anyone to accuse them of trolling. 

Can't see any problems with that.

> If 
> the post is on topic, we accept it. If nobody has any useful followup, the 
> thread dies.

Likewise.


-- 
The Wanderer

The future isn't what it used to be.

In article , 
guy.chapman@spamcop.net says...
> 
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:27:54 +0000, Matt B
>  wrote:
> 
> >What is your agenda here?  To censor out personal opinion? 
> 
> No

For values of "no" that equal "yes".  Since the beginning of time 
Chapman has fought tooth and nail to censor his opponents, especially 
when he knows they're right.

> , it's to prevent trolling.  You've already demonstrated that you
> have no idea why your own unique mix of cluelessness and pro-car
> zealotry is a problem

Even for Chapman, the hypocrisy that he has displayed in this thread is 
unbelievable.  He is the very definition of an anti-car zealot, and you 
can bet that if the authorities started systematically letting motorists 
off speed camera fines, he'd be the first to complain.

He quite clearly believes that road "safety" enforcement should be used 
as a way of encouraging modal shift, by being extremely soft on "good" 
road users (cyclists), and ridiculously harsh towards "bad" ones 
(motorists).  The trouble is that distorting road safety priorities in 
such a way costs lives, not that Chapman cares as long as motorists are 
being made to suffer.  Bastard.

"Clive George"  wrote in
news:2O6dnef6uNo6EHXXnZ2dnUVZ8jGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk: 

> "Tony"  wrote in message 
> news:hca1sp$ut7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Simon Brooke 
>> wrote: 
>>
>>>On 28 Oct, 16:09, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion
>>>> that the moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still
>>>> trying to understand how
>>>> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a
>>>> troll is). 
>>>
>>>I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and
>>>elegantly self referential.
>>>
>>>Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant
>>>trolling. Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed
>>>offended innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery.
>>>The problem is we're old hands. I personally have been using
>>>Usenet for quarter of a century; others of the moderation panel,
>>>I think, longer. We've seen trolls beside whom the trolls of
>>>today are mere shadows. So you can be as falsely naive as you
>>>want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye, right'.
>>>
>>>In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.
>>
>> Or, in summary: I've been doing this for so long and I have
>> become so bitter and cynical that I am now unable to tell
>> trolling apart from not-trolling.
> 
> To be fair to Simon, he's not the only one who has dropped hints
> that The Todal is trolling. And currently it's not obvious that he
> isn't. 

Sorry, it is totally obvious that, as an experienced moderator, he 
is trying to help the urcm moderation team develop their ideas about 
how to bring about the results they want.  They are currently 
lashing out irrationally and they may well end up offending a 
significant proportion of the people who might otherwise want to use 
their newsgroup.

If he were posting in urcm you might question his motives, but what 
is the purpose of this group?

-- 
Percy Picacity

"Percy Picacity" <key@under.the.invalid> wrote in message 
news:Xns9CB2C6F90129Cperspicacity@208.90.168.18...
> "Clive George"  wrote in
> news:2O6dnef6uNo6EHXXnZ2dnUVZ8jGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk:
>
>> "Tony"  wrote in message
>> news:hca1sp$ut7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Simon Brooke 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 28 Oct, 16:09, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion
>>>>> that the moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still
>>>>> trying to understand how
>>>>> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a
>>>>> troll is).
>>>>
>>>>I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and
>>>>elegantly self referential.
>>>>
>>>>Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant
>>>>trolling. Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed
>>>>offended innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery.
>>>>The problem is we're old hands. I personally have been using
>>>>Usenet for quarter of a century; others of the moderation panel,
>>>>I think, longer. We've seen trolls beside whom the trolls of
>>>>today are mere shadows. So you can be as falsely naive as you
>>>>want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye, right'.
>>>>
>>>>In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.
>>>
>>> Or, in summary: I've been doing this for so long and I have
>>> become so bitter and cynical that I am now unable to tell
>>> trolling apart from not-trolling.
>>
>> To be fair to Simon, he's not the only one who has dropped hints
>> that The Todal is trolling. And currently it's not obvious that he
>> isn't.
>
> Sorry, it is totally obvious that, as an experienced moderator, he
> is trying to help the urcm moderation team develop their ideas about
> how to bring about the results they want.

I'm afraid it isn't totally obvious. The fact that we clearly disagree about 
this supports my opinion, not yours.

However I continued to engage him - we will see how that pans out.

Simon Brooke  wrote:

> > They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the
> > moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand how
> > the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll is).
> 
> I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
> self referential.
> 
> Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant trolling.
> Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed offended
> innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery. The problem is
> we're old hands. I personally have been using Usenet for quarter of a
> century; others of the moderation panel, I think, longer. We've seen
> trolls beside whom the trolls of today are mere shadows. So you can be
> as falsely naive as you want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye,
> right'.
> 
> In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.

Actually it looked like a reasonable question to me. And not merely a
reasonable question, but anyone who would like to do something about
trolling needs to address.

How can you deal with a problem, unless you can have and describe some
criteria for recognising it?

Daniele

"D.M. Procida"  wrote in 
message 
news:1j8bav0.p2ygca3dqchN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
> Simon Brooke  wrote:
>
>> > They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the
>> > moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand 
>> > how
>> > the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll is).
>>
>> I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
>> self referential.
>>
>> Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant trolling.
>> Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed offended
>> innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery. The problem is
>> we're old hands. I personally have been using Usenet for quarter of a
>> century; others of the moderation panel, I think, longer. We've seen
>> trolls beside whom the trolls of today are mere shadows. So you can be
>> as falsely naive as you want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye,
>> right'.
>>
>> In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.
>
> Actually it looked like a reasonable question to me. And not merely a
> reasonable question, but anyone who would like to do something about
> trolling needs to address.
>
> How can you deal with a problem, unless you can have and describe some
> criteria for recognising it?

How come people are missing a very important point here? The moderation 
guidelines say nothing about preventing trolling.

Instead, the more normal tactic of controlling the bad behaviour which 
results from trolling is addressed : repetition, abuse, etc. Happily the 
first deals with nearly all the problems which URC was suffering from.

uk.legal.moderated seems to work in a similar way, and is successful, so why 
are people making out that this is something new which needs discussing?

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:42:34 +0000, Matt B
 wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:27:54 +0000, Matt B
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> What is your agenda here?  To censor out personal opinion? 
>> 
>> No, it's to prevent trolling.
>
>By trolling?  You reply to an on-topic post about an interesting 
>enforcement tactic by going off-topic and comparing it with a motoring 
>example, presumably (clue in your stuff below) in the mistaken belief 
>that I have some sort of motorist or motoring agenda here.


He did it when he turned urc to rat-shit - despite being warned.

He is obviously going to try the same  - indirectly -  here.

If you had made that post in the old group - then you would have been
jumped on. There would have been an argument  - which you would have
won.  You would have been declared to be a troll.

At least the moderator seems to have had more sense here - obviously
one of the more reasonable ones.  The others probably have his nuts in
the vice as we speak :-) as part of the re-education process.



 
--  

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 Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:25:02 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:42:34 +0000, Matt B
> wrote:
>
>>> No, it's to prevent trolling.
>
>>By trolling?  You reply to an on-topic post about an interesting 
>>enforcement tactic by going off-topic and comparing it with a motoring 
>>example, presumably (clue in your stuff below) in the mistaken belief 
>>that I have some sort of motorist or motoring agenda here.
>
>Yada yada yada.  You said: "[FPNs] will apparently be cancelled if
>evidence of the subsequent purchase of new lights is produced at a
>police station. So, in effect, you don't need to comply with the
>bicycle lights law there until after you have been caught breaking
>it."
>
>That is inaccurate (yes you do need to obey the law, otherwise why
>would plod be stopping people in the first place?) and inflammatory
>(presenting this as if it were in some way different to the way motor
>vehicle defects are handled).
>
>Still, I can fix this problem.  I will amend the scorefile to cover
>all groups not just urc.
> 
>Guy


Tosser.

How's the "jms"  - Chapman score these days?

--          

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)

In article , 
devnull@woodall.me.uk says...
> 
> Yes this is normal usenet custom. But what happens in URC is that anyone
> making point A will get reponse B. Response B should then generate
> reponses to continue the discussion.
> 
> However, what then happens is that the person posting point A reposts it
> to B and every other response to B.
> 
> This new A then generates a new set of B' (where B' differs from B only
> in "I've already said this once")
> 
> These B' may then also trigger some discussion from people who didn't
> see/reply to the original B. This lot then generate another load of A
> posts which get B'' replies ("I've already said this twice before")
> 
> Ad nauseum.

But hang on a minute.  What if point A is demonstrably correct, and made 
by those who are being honest about their true agenda, while point B is 
demonstrably false, and is only made by the ignorant and by those who 
know it to be false but have selfish reasons for wishing to pretend 
otherwise?  Why the hell shouldn't the honest people keep making point A 
in response to the scheming liars making point B?

Why should the car-haters be allowed to keep saying (without correction) 
that speed cameras save lives when *even they* know that the opposite is 
true?  Why shouldn't the people who really care about road safety and 
the facts be entitled to point out that cameras kill people, however 
much of an inconvenient dent it puts in the "arguments" made by those 
who are so consumed by their irrational hatred of motorists that they 
think nothing of advocating anti-car measures which they know to be 
killing people?

In other words, the above self-righteous preaching about point A and 
point B only stacks up when point A and point B are essentially "equal" 
in that neither can be conclusively demonstrated to be "right" or 
"wrong".  Where the debate is over and we have enough evidence to decide 
who's correct, as with speed cameras, there is absolutely no reason why 
those who are right shouldn't keep restating the truth until and unless 
everyone accepts reality and stops spouting rubbish about the topic.  
People have no right to propagate falsehoods unopposed, and that's as 
true with "Speed kills" or "Speed cameras save lives" as it is with "The 
Earth is flat" or "Creationism is correct".

In article , moderation2009
@live.co.uk says...
> 
> If you had made that post in the old group - then you would have been
> jumped on. There would have been an argument  - which you would have
> won.  You would have been declared to be a troll.

So very, very true.  No-one's allowed to make the car-haters look stupid 
or dishonest (which, let's face it, is extremely easy) without either 
being called a troll (URC) or having their post censored (URCM).

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:08:50 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:30:18 +0000, Geoff Berrow
> wrote:
>
>>To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>
>The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
> 
>Guy


You really are making yourself  look very, very silly here.


Perhaps it wasn't all my fault after-all :-)

Excellent - keep up the good work.


--          

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 in
news:MPG.2552c3b494f1af36989689@news.zen.co.uk: 

> In article , 
> devnull@woodall.me.uk says...
>> 
>> Yes this is normal usenet custom. But what happens in URC is that
>> anyone making point A will get reponse B. Response B should then
>> generate reponses to continue the discussion.
>> 
>> However, what then happens is that the person posting point A
>> reposts it to B and every other response to B.
>> 
>> This new A then generates a new set of B' (where B' differs from
>> B only in "I've already said this once")
>> 
>> These B' may then also trigger some discussion from people who
>> didn't see/reply to the original B. This lot then generate
>> another load of A posts which get B'' replies ("I've already said
>> this twice before") 
>> 
>> Ad nauseum.
> 
> But hang on a minute.  What if point A is demonstrably correct,
> and made by those who are being honest about their true agenda,
> while point B is demonstrably false, and is only made by the
> ignorant and by those who know it to be false but have selfish
> reasons for wishing to pretend otherwise?  Why the hell shouldn't
> the honest people keep making point A in response to the scheming
> liars making point B? 

Because those with normal short term memories will have read it 
before and be no more likely to believe it when it is said again:  
and it will get boring; then it will become really annoying and one 
will begin to wonder where on the autistic spectrum the posters lie.  
I don't think normal people over the age of eight like "yes it is", 
"no it isn't" type arguments for 5 minutes, let alone several 
months.  And we really aren't stupid, and won't begin to believe the 
other person because they keep harping on about the same forgotten 
argument and you fail to reply.  In fact the converse may be true.

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:58:38 -0000, "The Todal" 
wrote:

>
>"D.M. Procida"  wrote in 
>message 
>news:1j8alrs.k0d0sz2nly9N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
>> Just zis Guy, you know?  wrote:
>>
>>> >To save you from yourself?  For heaven's sake man, learn to resist!
>>>
>>> The point of the moderated group is that it does not include trolling.
>>
>> Or people's failure to resist responding to it.
>>
>
>People seem to be bandying around the word "trolling" in the confident 
>belief that they know what it means and that everyone else will know what it 
>means.
>
>In the context of a cycling newsgroup, can anyone have a go at defining 
>"trolling"?   The word  seems to be based on techniques used by anglers when 
>fishing, to attract fish. Perhaps the implication is that a troll is any 
>post which, in your opinion, anyone would be really stupid to post a 
>response to.  That involves quite a few value judgments.
>
>If I post a controversial (but on topic) message and wait to see if anyone 
>replies and gets drawn into a conversation with me, that's just standard 
>usenet custom and practice, surely?
>
>I don't see how any moderated group could have a rule to prohibit trolling, 
>without defining the term. Sorry if that's very legalistic and boring. 
>


From the "official"  definition of  the word psycholist:

A cyclist who is one of a small group who frequent the news group
uk.rec.cycling they have invented their own "language" to justify
their views:

Examples:


6)	The word "troll" is in common usage in Usenet.  However, the
psycholists have adopted it for their own use to apply to anyone who
disagrees with their ingrained and irrational views.  This enables
them to say "ignore him - he is a troll" when faced with facts which
are too unpalatable for the psycholist to contemplate - never mind
discuss in a sensible fashion.


You may have witnessed people using this sort of behaviour recently -
it appears not to be confined to uk.rec.cycling.

-- 
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

In message , "Just zis Guy, 
you know?"  writes
>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:24:38 +0000, Chris French
> wrote:
>
>
>>anyway, even if it was inaccurate so what, that's not a reason for not
>>allowing a post.
>
>It is if the post is insinuating unequal treatment where there is no
>such inequality.
>

Well no, in itself, even that isn't grounds in itself for not allowing a 
post. Though it might be in a particular context of course depending on 
the thread, other posts etc.


-- 
Chris French

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:29:20 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
 wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:50:33 -0000,
>    The Todal  wrote:
>>> No. But it prohibits repetitive posting.
>>
>> I think we got there in the end. A ban on repetitive posting of the same 
>> point. That would do the trick. So you don't ban the first post (despite 
>> your suspicions that it might be a troll) but you ban the followups when 
>> they begin to get bullying and repetitive. 
>>
>
>Yes. However I suspect the moderators will be fairly quick to block
>posts that indicate that the poster has done no research at all on the
>subject. A carefully worded question that appears from a newbie might be
>allowed through. A blanket assertion (from a newbie or otherwise) may
>well be blocked as needlessly inflamatory and some guideance given to
>check out similar threads in URC in the past.
>
>We will do helmets in URC eventually. It is an interesting topic because
>nobody knows why we get the real world results that we do get and so
>it's a ripe ground for hypotheses and URCM seems to have a large number
>of practicing scientists and science trained members who understand
>experimental design and confidence tests. But that will most likely
>happen when a new paper is published with some (new) interesting
>results. An inflamatory first post is not going to get people into the
>right frame of mind for that sort of discussion.
>
>Tim.


Are you saying that "cycle helmets" are off-topic in URCM?

You have said this, Chapman has said this - but the moderators seem to
be unsure.

I can understand a list of trigger words for a post to be scrutinised
- but I did not know that there was a trigger list for rejecting
posts.

Most odd - you would have thought that we would have been told about
this.

I don't think it is in the charter - is it?

--  

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 article , deadmailbox@beeb.net 
says...
> 
> "Simon Brooke"  wrote in message 
> news:ee0ce9aa-5a74-47f5-88ca-9d508ea7ca7c@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> > On 28 Oct, 16:09, "The Todal"  wrote:
> >>
> >> They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the
> >> moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand 
> >> how
> >> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll is).
> >
> > I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
> > self referential.
> >
> > Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant trolling.
> > Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed offended
> > innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery. The problem is
> > we're old hands. I personally have been using Usenet for quarter of a
> > century; others of the moderation panel, I think, longer. We've seen
> > trolls beside whom the trolls of today are mere shadows. So you can be
> > as falsely naive as you want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye,
> > right'.
> >
> > In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.
> 
> Okay, have it your way. In summary: sorry, old chap, but you're an arrogant 
> tosser and you're certainly not fit to be a moderator.  Don't worry - I 
> won't be posting to your group, though. Hope the rest of the team are better 
> than you are, and that they swiftly see the sense in evicting you. 

Some of them are somewhat better than he is (Danny Colyer for example); 
some, including the repulsive, loathsome "head honcho", are most 
definitely not.  I'm sorry that you've had to find out the hard way just 
what obnoxious wankers these people are, but at least when someone with 
your experience comes on here and genuinely tries to help by telling it 
how it is, they can't be immediately dismissed as a "troll" in the same 
way as most people who dare to oppose The Regime in any way.

Oh, hang on, you have been dismissed as a troll.  Well that really does 
sum up the likes of Brooke, Jackson and Clinch.  No-one, but no-one, is 
allowed to offer up anything but fawning praise, and certainly not 
(gasp) criticism of any kind.  No-one, but no-one, is allowed to 
disagree with the "party line" on cycle helmets, anti-motorist measures 
or anything else.  The level of arrogance and the utter refusal to 
accept any proportion of blame regarding anything whatsoever is nothing 
short of breathtaking.  I've literally never seen such a bunch of utter 
fuckwits in charge of anything (and yes, that includes Liebour, aka the 
Chapman Party).

Well done for sticking around and persevering for as long as you did.  
And now that you've seen just what a shower of shite URCM is, and just 
how suspect the motives of the "moderators" are, please do use any 
influence you have to get the group removed.  Usenet doesn't need groups 
which only exist so that certain true facts that some people find 
unpalatable can be routinely censored.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:50:37 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
 wrote:

>On 28 Oct, 10:58, "The Todal"  wrote:
>
>> I don't see how any moderated group could have a rule to prohibit trolling,
>> without defining the term. Sorry if that's very legalistic and boring.
>
>There is no rule prohibiting trolling. There is a directive that
>'Moderation will be used to ensure that the group remains civil,
>pleasant, and of interest to cyclists.' That is all. Any claim that
>there are different rules from those expressed in the charter is just
>wilfully misleading, dishonest, and, I would suggest, trollish.
>
>If a blob of glup can be trollish,. of course.


Please answer a simple question:

Are discussions  of anything to do with "cycle-helmets" off-topic?

--  

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 article <20091028133507.55ae688e@bluemoon>, nospam@ntlworld.com 
says...
> 
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:08:20 +0000
> "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:27:54 +0000, Matt B
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > >What is your agenda here?  To censor out personal opinion? 
> > 
> > No, it's to prevent trolling.  You've already demonstrated that you
> > have no idea why your own unique mix of cluelessness and pro-car
> > zealotry is a problem,
> 
> Pot-kettle springs to mind here.

First sensible thing you've said all year.  (Sorry, but you know that's 
true.)

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:41:46 +0000, The Wanderer
 wrote:

<snip>


>> (and what a troll is).
>
>Now I suspect you're pretending to be an out of touch member of the
>judiciary.
>
>Think rod, line, hook, bait, strike, gotcha! But you knew that, didn't you?


The problem is that what people outside of urc understand to be a
troll,  is totally different from what the regulars of urc  think is a
troll.

An urc troll can be:

a newcomer asking an innocent question

someone who disagrees with one of the established members of urc

someone who posts something which is true  - but urc members do not
wish to be reminded of

someone who disagrees with a fact stated by a regular - and actually
proves them wrong

someone who posts a reference to a cyclist's misbehaviour/illegal act

someone who does not shit from people

someone who will not go away.


-- 
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

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:23:35 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:08:20 +0000, Peter Clinch
> wrote:
>
>>Yes, it's quite possibly there quite deliberately and carefully 
>>worded as a wedge to try and be the thin end, but just becauuse a 
>>thread has been started doesn't mean explicitly trollish followups 
>>that try to force bogus comparisons between cyclists and other 
>>parties can't get thrown out.
>
>Yes, this is a fair point.  I don't think Matt has the wit to actually
>game the system, I think on reflection this was just another of his
>clueless assertions which is easily proven wrong. 


You really are objectionable.

At least I believe him to be honest and not an out and out liar.

--          

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)

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:02:32 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:29:38 +0000, Chris French
> wrote:
>
>>Yup, just like have to forget about they way your behaviour in response 
>>to certain posters on urc contributed to the level of noise and crap on 
>>there
>
>And I have put my hands up to that.  It is, however, a matter of
>record that the attacks from those individuals outweigh my responses
>by an order of magnitude, and continue whether I reply or not.
> 
>Guy

Ah but we are the bad guys with a mission statement to turn the group
to rat-shit ( as some would say)

You were told time and time again that it was *your* behaviour which
was in fact doing just that.

You were told that by your peers.

You ignored them.

You are doing the same now.
--          

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)

Matt B  wrote:

> This is a cycling newsgroup.

<All together>

Oh no it isn't!


Gosh, I didn't think the panto season started until the month after
next.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:24:21 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

<blah>

Check the headers.  You were replying to this:
<http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=xSqVOxsAAACALntdCZhygj0p6wab60EGW0rZFdfcaar5x5y0kptMbA>.
It has decided it would be terribly amusing to pretend to be me.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in
news:3njhe59fqc8ai57o38ahmh00fulsprcqbk@4ax.com: 

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:24:21 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
><key@under.the.invalid> wrote:
> 
><blah>
> 
> Check the headers.  You were replying to this:
><http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=xSqVOxsAAACALntdCZ
>hygj0p6wab60EGW0rZFdfcaar5x5y0kptMbA>. 
> It has decided it would be terribly amusing to pretend to be me.
>  
> Guy

OK, the argument applies almost equally to both of you, though jms has 
more intense and unremitting nastiness as her style.

-- 
Percy Picacity

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:24:55 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>OK, the argument applies almost equally to both of you, though jms has 
>more intense and unremitting nastiness as her style.

Like I said, it wasn't me, and compared with Nuxx the jms is
positively delightful.
 
Guy
-- 
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/
GPG public ket at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

"Clive George"  wrote in message 
news:FradnWzSyaZFCXXXnZ2dnUVZ7v6dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
> news:7krgp0F3b4tapU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> I wonder if you are aware that Todal was a key co-founder of 
>> uk.legal.moderated, and remains a much valued senior moderator for that 
>> successful and popular group?
>
> All that shouldn't preclude him from having a sense of mischief, and 
> occasionally exercising it in appropriate places.

What's this concept of "mischief"?  Does it mean siding with the Axis of 
Evil, instead of the Coalition?

>
>> To accuse him of bad faith in this context is beyond the pale, and raises 
>> questions about your own judgement..
>
> My opinion of the Todal is definitely tempered by seeing some of his 
> judgement - he's not infallible by any means.

Well, duh.  I've never claimed to be infallible and I've certainly never 
claimed to be an expert on anything at all. I offered some opinions because 
the charter and moderation policy of uk.legal.moderated is about 95% 
authored by me and I am genuinely interested in how one can refine a 
moderation policy so that it is both easily implemented by a large team, and 
beneficial to the group. I don't mind a conversation in which my views are 
dismissed, so long as I'm still learning something.   What is apparent to me 
is that unfortunately the moderation team for the cycling group is already 
alienating its users by adopting a somewhat elitist and exclusive approach 
to its role.  You can't treat your subscribers like a class of five year 
olds and tell them that nanny knows best.

Anyone who wants to be a moderator because he enjoys exercising power over 
other people, is inherently unsuitable for the role of moderator. So is 
anyone who is so convinced of their papal infallibility that they see all 
dissenting opinion as unworthy of consideration and a potential threat.

The moderators will have to learn the hard way how to engage with the users 
of the group and win respect and co-operation.  And they will also have to 
wrestle with the problem that we had to wrestle with - how to rectify 
mistakes that were made when choosing members of the moderation team.  At 
least one member has shown himself to be a mistake - you can spend some time 
trying to nudge him into the right path, but that won't necessarily work. 
You can also hope that when he gradually realises that the post of moderator 
doesn't bring him the power and prestige he craves, he'll resign of his own 
accord and find something else to do.

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:7ks4hcF3bp5n4U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Clive George"  wrote in message 
> news:FradnWzSyaZFCXXXnZ2dnUVZ7v6dnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
>> news:7krgp0F3b4tapU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> I wonder if you are aware that Todal was a key co-founder of 
>>> uk.legal.moderated, and remains a much valued senior moderator for that 
>>> successful and popular group?
>>
>> All that shouldn't preclude him from having a sense of mischief, and 
>> occasionally exercising it in appropriate places.
>
> What's this concept of "mischief"?  Does it mean siding with the Axis of 
> Evil, instead of the Coalition?

Serious question? I meant mischief in it's basic sense. Nothing about taking 
sides, just having some fun but not necessarily in a completely productive 
way.

>>> To accuse him of bad faith in this context is beyond the pale, and 
>>> raises questions about your own judgement..
>>
>> My opinion of the Todal is definitely tempered by seeing some of his 
>> judgement - he's not infallible by any means.
>
> Well, duh.  I've never claimed to be infallible and I've certainly never 
> claimed to be an expert on anything at all.

I know you've never claimed that. I was replying to Steve, tempering some of 
his enthusiasm.

> I offered some opinions because the charter and moderation policy of 
> uk.legal.moderated is about 95% authored by me and I am genuinely 
> interested in how one can refine a moderation policy so that it is both 
> easily implemented by a large team, and beneficial to the group. I don't 
> mind a conversation in which my views are dismissed, so long as I'm still 
> learning something.   What is apparent to me is that unfortunately the 
> moderation team for the cycling group is already alienating its users by 
> adopting a somewhat elitist and exclusive approach to its role.  You can't 
> treat your subscribers like a class of five year olds and tell them that 
> nanny knows best.

And I've actually replied to you in an attempt to keep that process going, 
but you didn't appear to have anything to say about that. Mostly I was 
pointing out that "trolling" isn't actually covered in the urcm mod policy, 
just as it isn't for ulm. Since you seemed to be basing your discussion on 
the idea that it was, it seemed appropriate to point out this wasn't the 
case.

I think what we actually learned in that thread is that both groups have a 
similar policy. I believe urcm did learn from ulm, and that process happened 
during the group setup - RFD time. I don't think it's time to discuss 
refining yet - urcm is still very young, and hasn't settled itself down into 
a state where that can happen sensibly.

> You can also hope that when he gradually realises that the post of 
> moderator doesn't bring him the power and prestige he craves, he'll resign 
> of his own accord and find something else to do.

If we're talking about Simon here, I strongly believe based on past 
interaction (several years worth on URC) that power and prestige aren't 
behind why he's doing this. Being pissed off at the state of URC caused by 
jms was the main driver.

I think at the moment the URCM moderation panel are genuinely driven by a 
desire to do better. This is how many politicians start - the craving of 
power and prestige comes later, and we need to watch for that happening - 
though since it's actually only a rather tedious job (at a guess), it seems 
unlikely that experienced mods will get that craving.

Don't underestimate the depth of feeling which caused the group to be 
created. jms managed to piss off a lot of people a great deal, and this 
generated a collection of people who wanted to make a better place, not a 
collection of people who said "haha! Now I have Kontrol!". The trick is to 
avoid that feeling driving things the wrong way, and I'm participating here 
in order to help that.

Clive George  wrote:

> I think at the moment the URCM moderation panel are genuinely driven by a
> desire to do better. This is how many politicians start - the craving of
> power and prestige comes later, and we need to watch for that happening -
> though since it's actually only a rather tedious job (at a guess), it seems
> unlikely that experienced mods will get that craving.

I don't think that's what happens at all. I think that the most
dangerous people of all in any position of power are the ones who are
genuinely driven by a desire to do better.

Their belief in their cause justifies their cutting small corners off
frustrating and cumbersome procedures and rules. Once this starts, they
enter into a cycle of self-justificatory reasoning, and actions that
both follow it and feed it.

The next thing they know (if they're police detectives) is fabricating
evidence or beating up suspects. If they are newsgroup moderators the
consequences are often far worse.

Daniele

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:10:09 -0000, Clive George wrote:

> "D.M. Procida"  wrote in 
> message 
> news:1j8bav0.p2ygca3dqchN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
>> Simon Brooke  wrote:
>>
>>> > They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the
>>> > moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to understand 
>>> > how
>>> > the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll is).
>>>
>>> I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
>>> self referential.
>>>
>>> Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant trolling.
>>> Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed offended
>>> innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery. The problem is
>>> we're old hands. I personally have been using Usenet for quarter of a
>>> century; others of the moderation panel, I think, longer. We've seen
>>> trolls beside whom the trolls of today are mere shadows. So you can be
>>> as falsely naive as you want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye,
>>> right'.
>>>
>>> In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.
>>
>> Actually it looked like a reasonable question to me. And not merely a
>> reasonable question, but anyone who would like to do something about
>> trolling needs to address.
>>
>> How can you deal with a problem, unless you can have and describe some
>> criteria for recognising it?
> 
> How come people are missing a very important point here? The moderation 
> guidelines say nothing about preventing trolling.
> 
> Instead, the more normal tactic of controlling the bad behaviour which 
> results from trolling is addressed : repetition, abuse, etc. Happily the 
> first deals with nearly all the problems which URC was suffering from.
> 
> uk.legal.moderated seems to work in a similar way, and is successful, so why 
> are people making out that this is something new which needs discussing?

Because educated doesn't mean intelligent?


-- 
The Wanderer

I have seen the truth - it doesn't make sense

"The Wanderer"  wrote in message 
news:10nm9vcmmypbn.xtxnfl9nlyqh.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:10:09 -0000, Clive George wrote:
>
>> "D.M. Procida"  wrote in
>> message
>> news:1j8bav0.p2ygca3dqchN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
>>> Simon Brooke  wrote:
>>>
>>>> > They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the
>>>> > moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to 
>>>> > understand
>>>> > how
>>>> > the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll 
>>>> > is).
>>>>
>>>> I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
>>>> self referential.
>>>>
>>>> Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant trolling.
>>>> Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed offended
>>>> innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery. The problem is
>>>> we're old hands. I personally have been using Usenet for quarter of a
>>>> century; others of the moderation panel, I think, longer. We've seen
>>>> trolls beside whom the trolls of today are mere shadows. So you can be
>>>> as falsely naive as you want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye,
>>>> right'.
>>>>
>>>> In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.
>>>
>>> Actually it looked like a reasonable question to me. And not merely a
>>> reasonable question, but anyone who would like to do something about
>>> trolling needs to address.
>>>
>>> How can you deal with a problem, unless you can have and describe some
>>> criteria for recognising it?
>>
>> How come people are missing a very important point here? The moderation
>> guidelines say nothing about preventing trolling.
>>
>> Instead, the more normal tactic of controlling the bad behaviour which
>> results from trolling is addressed : repetition, abuse, etc. Happily the
>> first deals with nearly all the problems which URC was suffering from.
>>
>> uk.legal.moderated seems to work in a similar way, and is successful, so 
>> why
>> are people making out that this is something new which needs discussing?
>
> Because educated doesn't mean intelligent?

Wrong.

Because I saw a post which clearly implied that some contributors might be 
blacklisted from the outset as punishment for their activities on the 
unmoderated groups, as a warning to them to improve their behaviour.  That 
might be a well-meaning but totally fuckwitted attempt by the moderators to 
prevent trolling.

The Todal wrote:

> Because I saw a post which clearly implied that some contributors might be 
> blacklisted from the outset 

Whatever the implication, this has not been the case.

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 Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:24:55 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
<key@under.the.invalid> wrote:

>"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote in
>news:3njhe59fqc8ai57o38ahmh00fulsprcqbk@4ax.com: 
>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:24:21 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity
>><key@under.the.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>><blah>
>> 
>> Check the headers.  You were replying to this:
>><http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=xSqVOxsAAACALntdCZ
>>hygj0p6wab60EGW0rZFdfcaar5x5y0kptMbA>. 
>> It has decided it would be terribly amusing to pretend to be me.
>>  
>> Guy
>
>OK, the argument applies almost equally to both of you, though jms has 
>more intense and unremitting nastiness as her style.


"nastiness" - me?

I have told you before - if someone is "nasty"  to me - then I will be
"nasty"  to them.

That is their problem   - not mine.

There is actually quite a small number of people who have been nasty
to me.

--  

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 Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:08:54 -0000, The Todal wrote:

> "The Wanderer"  wrote in message 
> news:10nm9vcmmypbn.xtxnfl9nlyqh.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:10:09 -0000, Clive George wrote:
>>
>>> "D.M. Procida"  wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:1j8bav0.p2ygca3dqchN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk...
>>>> Simon Brooke  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > They have been raised, I thought, because of Guy's assertion that the
>>>>> > moderated group would prevent trolling. I'm still trying to 
>>>>> > understand
>>>>> > how
>>>>> > the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll 
>>>>> > is).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
>>>>> self referential.
>>>>>
>>>>> Faux Naivete is the essence - the core skill - of elegant trolling.
>>>>> Assumed innocence (which morphs quickly into assumed offended
>>>>> innocence when challenged) plays well to the gallery. The problem is
>>>>> we're old hands. I personally have been using Usenet for quarter of a
>>>>> century; others of the moderation panel, I think, longer. We've seen
>>>>> trolls beside whom the trolls of today are mere shadows. So you can be
>>>>> as falsely naive as you want to, and all we'll do is say, 'aye,
>>>>> right'.
>>>>>
>>>>> In summary: sorry, old chap, but I'm not playing.
>>>>
>>>> Actually it looked like a reasonable question to me. And not merely a
>>>> reasonable question, but anyone who would like to do something about
>>>> trolling needs to address.
>>>>
>>>> How can you deal with a problem, unless you can have and describe some
>>>> criteria for recognising it?
>>>
>>> How come people are missing a very important point here? The moderation
>>> guidelines say nothing about preventing trolling.
>>>
>>> Instead, the more normal tactic of controlling the bad behaviour which
>>> results from trolling is addressed : repetition, abuse, etc. Happily the
>>> first deals with nearly all the problems which URC was suffering from.
>>>
>>> uk.legal.moderated seems to work in a similar way, and is successful, so 
>>> why
>>> are people making out that this is something new which needs discussing?
>>
>> Because educated doesn't mean intelligent?
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Because I saw a post which clearly implied that some contributors might be 
> blacklisted from the outset as punishment for their activities on the 
> unmoderated groups, as a warning to them to improve their behaviour.  That 
> might be a well-meaning but totally fuckwitted attempt by the moderators to 
> prevent trolling.

Err, I rather think you missed my point. I've read a lot of the threads
that have appeared about urcm which have appeared in unnm without feeling
the need to comment. Equally I've noticed that there are a significant
number of posters from urc(m)who appear to be associated with educational
establishments.

This has lead me to conclude - being educated is not the same thing as
being intelligent. 


-- 
The Wanderer

All wighy, rho sriyched yhe ket pads on my ketboawd?

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:7kt7s8F3atp6bU1@mid.individual.net...

> Because I saw a post which clearly implied that some contributors might be 
> blacklisted from the outset as punishment for their activities on the 
> unmoderated groups, as a warning to them to improve their behaviour.

Has anything like that been clearly implied? I can't see it. I reckon this 
is inferred rather than implied - the latter implies intent to communicate 
it, which since it's not true would be foolish.

"Clive George"  wrote in message 
news:Ov6dnTjZX9CGOnTXnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> "The Todal"  wrote in message 
> news:7kt7s8F3atp6bU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> Because I saw a post which clearly implied that some contributors might 
>> be blacklisted from the outset as punishment for their activities on the 
>> unmoderated groups, as a warning to them to improve their behaviour.
>
> Has anything like that been clearly implied? I can't see it. I reckon this 
> is inferred rather than implied - the latter implies intent to communicate 
> it, which since it's not true would be foolish.

Can't quite follow what you're saying.  I refer you to this post by a chap 
called Simon Brooke (13:32 yesterday), in these terms:

"Our remit is specifically and
explicitly to '...ensure that the group remains civil, pleasant, and of
interest to cyclists.' I take that to mean that we are /required/ to
exclude disruptive and confrontational contributors.

I should say clearly that I take a harder line than many of my fellow
moderators here; after all, all men have their faults, and mine is being
wicked. But I see no reason not to blacklist certain troublemakers now -
initially for short periods - to pull them up sharp and let them know
that if they can't amend their ways they will be permanently excluded".

Maybe he meant that he could blacklist the troublemakers based on the first 
few posts they have made to the moderated group.  I inferred that in his 
view, blacklisting could be based on past posting history prior to the 
creation of the group.  But I won't trouble him for an explanation.  He'd 
call me faux-naive, with that flawless French accent of his.  Still,  how do 
you interpret his words?

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:7ktpdpF38qau8U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> "Clive George"  wrote in message 
> news:Ov6dnTjZX9CGOnTXnZ2dnUVZ8uqdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>> "The Todal"  wrote in message 
>> news:7kt7s8F3atp6bU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> Because I saw a post which clearly implied that some contributors might 
>>> be blacklisted from the outset as punishment for their activities on the 
>>> unmoderated groups, as a warning to them to improve their behaviour.
>>
>> Has anything like that been clearly implied? I can't see it. I reckon 
>> this is inferred rather than implied - the latter implies intent to 
>> communicate it, which since it's not true would be foolish.
>
> Can't quite follow what you're saying.  I refer you to this post by a chap 
> called Simon Brooke (13:32 yesterday)

sorry, it was the day before - 27/10.

On 29 Oct, 00:54, "Clive George"  wrote:
>
> If we're talking about Simon here, I strongly believe based on past
> interaction (several years worth on URC) that power and prestige aren't
> behind why he's doing this. Being pissed off at the state of URC caused by
> jms was the main driver.

While being pissed off with the state of trolling on URC was indeed
the main driver, recall that I had largely ceased posting to it (or
reading it very much) long before Judith came on the scene. The usual
suspects were perfectly capable of creating endless and pointless
flamewars without any help from her.

On 29 Oct, 15:08, "The Todal"  wrote:
>
> Maybe he meant that he could blacklist the troublemakers based on the first
> few posts they have made to the moderated group.  I inferred that in his
> view, blacklisting could be based on past posting history prior to the
> creation of the group.

Then you inferred incorrectly. The mere appearance of a new social
space may encourage many former troublemakers to mend their ways;
causing otherwhere than uk.rec.cycling.moderated does not imply a
propensity to cause trouble in uk.rec.cycling.moderated. If it did, I
should be obliged to blacklist myself.

>  But I won't trouble him for an explanation.

It's no trouble.

On 29 Oct, 16:05, Simon Brooke  wrote:
> causing otherwhere than uk.rec.cycling.moderated does not imply a

Following up to myself, how uncool. Having submitted a post without
careful proofreading, how much more uncool. However, all men have
their faults...

I meant, of course, '...causing trouble otherwhere...'

Simon Brooke wrote:
> On 29 Oct, 15:08, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>
>> Maybe he meant that he could blacklist the troublemakers based on
>> the first few posts they have made to the moderated group. I
>> inferred that in his view, blacklisting could be based on past
>> posting history prior to the creation of the group.
>
> Then you inferred incorrectly. The mere appearance of a new social
> space may encourage many former troublemakers to mend their ways;
> causing otherwhere than uk.rec.cycling.moderated does not imply a
> propensity to cause trouble in uk.rec.cycling.moderated. If it did, I
> should be obliged to blacklist myself.

Thanks for clarifying that, Simon. It may be that we have misunderstood each 
other.

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:7ktu0nF3b81c5U1@mid.individual.net...
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> On 29 Oct, 15:08, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>>
>>> Maybe he meant that he could blacklist the troublemakers based on
>>> the first few posts they have made to the moderated group. I
>>> inferred that in his view, blacklisting could be based on past
>>> posting history prior to the creation of the group.
>>
>> Then you inferred incorrectly. The mere appearance of a new social
>> space may encourage many former troublemakers to mend their ways;
>> causing otherwhere than uk.rec.cycling.moderated does not imply a
>> propensity to cause trouble in uk.rec.cycling.moderated. If it did, I
>> should be obliged to blacklist myself.
>
> Thanks for clarifying that, Simon. It may be that we have misunderstood 
> each other.

Yay, happiness is restored all round!

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:27:54  
uk.net.news.moderation Matt B 

>So what?  This is a cycling newsgroup.

Is it pantomime season again?

This is uk.net.news.moderation

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

"Wm..."  wrote in 
news:mz2vFzeKru6KFwE7@[127.0.0.1]:

> Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:27:54  
> uk.net.news.moderation Matt B 
> 
>>So what?  This is a cycling newsgroup.
> 
> Is it pantomime season again?
> 
> This is uk.net.news.moderation
> 

What he said: it is clearly a cycling newsgroup at the moment.  Of 
course, next year, when the new Committee gets going, *all* newsgroups 
will be cycling newsgroups.[1]   Whether they will all be moderated 
cycling newsgroups depends on the degree of compliance of the posters, 
and will be decided after a probationary period.


[1]  The new commissars sees no reason to confine the role of the 
committee to uk.*

-- 
Percy Picacity

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:10:44  
uk.net.news.moderation "Just zis Guy, you know?" 


>In article ,
>devnull@woodall.me.uk says...
>>
>> Yes this is normal usenet custom. But what happens in URC is that anyone
>> making point A will get reponse B. Response B should then generate
>> reponses to continue the discussion.
>>
>> However, what then happens is that the person posting point A reposts it
>> to B and every other response to B.
>>
>> This new A then generates a new set of B' (where B' differs from B only
>> in "I've already said this once")
>>
>> These B' may then also trigger some discussion from people who didn't
>> see/reply to the original B. This lot then generate another load of A
>> posts which get B'' replies ("I've already said this twice before")
>>
>> Ad nauseum.
>
>But hang on a minute.  What if point A is demonstrably correct, and made
>by those who are being honest about their true agenda, while point B is
>demonstrably false, and is only made by the ignorant and by those who
>know it to be false but have selfish reasons for wishing to pretend
>otherwise?  Why the hell shouldn't the honest people keep making point A
>in response to the scheming liars making point B?

I'd have thought an honest person would not approximate someone else but 
rather be themself.  You can't manage that can you?

>Why should the car-haters be allowed to keep saying (without correction)
>that speed cameras save lives when *even they* know that the opposite is
>true?

Because it isn't true.

>  Why shouldn't the people who really care about road safety and
>the facts be entitled to point out that cameras kill people,

Because they don't.

... unless you honestly believe cameras leap out and do things to 
people.  Science fiction fans should get the reference.

> however
>much of an inconvenient dent it puts in the "arguments" made by those
>who are so consumed by their irrational hatred of motorists that they
>think nothing of advocating anti-car measures which they know to be
>killing people?

You are a very strange person.  Anti-car measures cause death?

>In other words, the above self-righteous preaching about point A and
>point B only stacks up when point A and point B are essentially "equal"
>in that neither can be conclusively demonstrated to be "right" or
>"wrong".

There are facts about if you want to find them.

>  Where the debate is over and we have enough evidence to decide
>who's correct, as with speed cameras, there is absolutely no reason why
>those who are right shouldn't keep restating the truth until and unless
>everyone accepts reality and stops spouting rubbish about the topic.
>People have no right to propagate falsehoods unopposed, and that's as
>true with "Speed kills" or "Speed cameras save lives" as it is with "The
>Earth is flat" or "Creationism is correct".

How much were you fined?
-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:27:54 
 
uk.net.news.moderation Clive George 

>To be fair to Simon, he's not the only one who has dropped hints that The
>Todal is trolling. And currently it's not obvious that he isn't.

I've been surprised by some of the things he has said recently too.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:23:10  
uk.net.news.moderation jms 


>someone who does not shit from people

does anyone know what that means?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

"Wm..."  wrote in
news:HNtH6FFi3W7KFwLl@[127.0.0.1]: 

> Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:23:10
>  
> uk.net.news.moderation jms  
> 
> 
>>someone who does not shit from people
> 
> does anyone know what that means?
> 
I think it means there is a verb missing between "not" and "shit", and 
it is a verb which can take the preposition "from".  Does that narrow 
it down at all?


-- 
Percy Picacity

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:39:28  
uk.net.news.moderation Peter Clinch 

>The Todal wrote:
>
>> Because I saw a post which clearly implied that some contributors might be
>> blacklisted from the outset
>
>Whatever the implication, this has not been the case.

I'll go so far as to ask TT for an MID because that isn't what I recall 
happening either.

TT: wot jms says doesn't count, it asserts a lot of stuff that simply 
isn't true.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

"Wm..."  wrote in message 
news:Gs0Xi7HEZX7KFwZI@[127.0.0.1]...
> Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:39:28  
> uk.net.news.moderation Peter Clinch 
>
>>The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Because I saw a post which clearly implied that some contributors might 
>>> be
>>> blacklisted from the outset
>>
>>Whatever the implication, this has not been the case.
>
> I'll go so far as to ask TT for an MID because that isn't what I recall 
> happening either.

If you read through the threads, I cited Simon's post, he explained what he 
meant, I accepted his explanation.

In view of the huge amount of unhelpful traffic in this group, I shall now 
keep silent except insofar as any posts are relevant specifically to 
uk.legal.moderated.

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:08:24  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 


>Maybe he meant that he could blacklist the troublemakers based on the first
>few posts they have made to the moderated group.  I inferred that in his
>view, blacklisting could be based on past posting history prior to the
>creation of the group.  But I won't trouble him for an explanation.  He'd
>call me faux-naive, with that flawless French accent of his.  Still,  how do
>you interpret his words?

My understanding was that everyone would be able to have a first post to 
the group, be able to show themselves to be reasonable, be able to 
self-moderate effectively.  Not a lot different to ulm, I thought.

As far as I can see, with very few exceptions, this is what has 
happened.

Yes, a few people that I like haven't always been able to get their 
posts through on time or at all.  I expect the urcm mods aren't unaware 
of that.

Personally I'd be happy to see a good post to urcm from the jms entity. 
I'd happily engage in discussion with it and I'd expect my posts to be 
moderated if I went too far.

As far as I know the jms hasn't managed to create a good post to urcm 
yet, I'm not even sure if it has tried because it seems to spend most of 
its time complaining noisily that it can't do something which it hasn't 
tried to do.

Presuming someone from the urcm moderation team gets to read this: has 
the jms actually posted anything to the group yet?  Moans about the 
moderation don't count, I'm thinking of an actual article worth 
discussing with cyclists.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:33:35 +0000, Percy Picacity wrote:

> "Clive George"  wrote in
> news:2O6dnef6uNo6EHXXnZ2dnUVZ8jGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk:
> 
>> "Tony"  wrote in message
>> news:hca1sp$ut7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Simon Brooke 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 28 Oct, 16:09, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm still trying to
>>>>> understand how
>>>>> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll
>>>>> is).
>>>>
>>>>I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
>>>>self referential.
>>>
>>> Or, in summary: I've been doing this for so long and I have become so
>>> bitter and cynical that I am now unable to tell trolling apart from
>>> not-trolling.

That's possibly true. I find after three months of being back I am once 
again utterly fed up of Usenet, with all it's fifth form debating society 
tactics, pointless bickering, and general pettiness. When someone 
representing themselves as a well established moderator of a well 
established moderated group claims not to know what a troll is, my alarms 
light up brightly.

(In addition, when the same person does not appear to be familiar with 
the text from which his own nom de net derives, I'll confess my literary 
snobbery lights up, too. I'm inclined to be prejudiced against people who 
hide behind false names anyway, and that particular name implies 
deliberate mischief.)

>> To be fair to Simon, he's not the only one who has dropped hints that
>> The Todal is trolling. And currently it's not obvious that he isn't.
> 
> Sorry, it is totally obvious that, as an experienced moderator, he is
> trying to help the urcm moderation team develop their ideas about how to
> bring about the results they want.

It was not obvious (at the time) to me, but I'm inclined to think I over-
reacted, and will give him the benefit of the doubt next time.

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and 
every moderation decision is unexplained and final.

Simon Brooke <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:

> my alarms light up brightly.
> 
> my literary snobbery lights up, too.

You must have looked like a Christmas tree.

Daniele
-- 
Wanted: reasonably decent road bike/frame with horizontal 
drop-outs for fixed-wheel conversion project (Cardiff)

"Simon Brooke" <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote in message 
news:7l5cb5F3dc0usU3@mid.individual.net...
> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:33:35 +0000, Percy Picacity wrote:
>
>> "Clive George"  wrote in
>> news:2O6dnef6uNo6EHXXnZ2dnUVZ8jGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk:
>>
>>> "Tony"  wrote in message
>>> news:hca1sp$ut7$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> In uk.net.news.moderation, Simon Brooke 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 28 Oct, 16:09, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm still trying to
>>>>>> understand how
>>>>>> the moderation guidelines will prevent trolling (and what a troll
>>>>>> is).
>>>>>
>>>>>I have to say I find your last sentence there pleasingly and elegantly
>>>>>self referential.
>>>>
>>>> Or, in summary: I've been doing this for so long and I have become so
>>>> bitter and cynical that I am now unable to tell trolling apart from
>>>> not-trolling.
>
> That's possibly true. I find after three months of being back I am once
> again utterly fed up of Usenet, with all it's fifth form debating society
> tactics, pointless bickering, and general pettiness. When someone
> representing themselves as a well established moderator of a well
> established moderated group claims not to know what a troll is, my alarms
> light up brightly.

I don't know how you or anyone else defines a troll, except in very 
subjective terms. Your alarms should be telling you that you aren't half as 
clever as you think you are, and that you may end up exercising your 
moderator's red pen based on nothing more than whether you happen to be in a 
good mood or a bad mood that day.

But I had already come to the conclusion that we can't engage in debate. You 
are too suspicious and distrustful and anyway, you value your gut feelings 
far more than the opinions of anyone else. You ought to be in charge of the 
government's drug policy.

>
> (In addition, when the same person does not appear to be familiar with
> the text from which his own nom de net derives

If that doesn't appear so to you, again it merely tells you that your 
comprehension skills are defective.  I chose the name because I like the 
book and know it well. Now tell me what Brooke is supposed to denote. 
Babbling?

, I'll confess my literary
> snobbery lights up, too.

Your snobbery and your inflated sense of self-worth have certainly lit up 
like a gantry of traffic lights. I hope you aren't dazzled and don't find 
yourself being dragged under the rear wheels of a large vehicle.

Simon Brooke <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I find after three months of being back I am once again utterly fed up of
> Usenet,

Excellent, then do be a good chap and fuck off.

Your attack upon the Todal is petty, stupid and pointless. Your response
in the post I have replied to is pompous and hollow. If you go you won't
be missed, but at least you'll escape with some tatters of dignity.

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:39:11  
uk.net.news.moderation Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid>

>"Wm..."  wrote in
>news:HNtH6FFi3W7KFwLl@[127.0.0.1]:
>
>> Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:23:10
>> 
>> uk.net.news.moderation jms 
>>
>>
>>>someone who does not shit from people
>>
>> does anyone know what that means?
>>
>I think it means there is a verb missing between "not" and "shit", and
>it is a verb which can take the preposition "from".  Does that narrow
>it down at all?

Yes, I could have put the extra word in myself.  The problem is the jms 
wants us to believe her words are true as written.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:27:15  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>Your snobbery and your inflated sense of self-worth have certainly lit up
>like a gantry of traffic lights. I hope you aren't dazzled and don't find
>yourself being dragged under the rear wheels of a large vehicle.

I think this would be better done via e-mail.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:58:06  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>
>"Wm..."  wrote in message
>news:Gs0Xi7HEZX7KFwZI@[127.0.0.1]...
>> Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:39:28 
>> uk.net.news.moderation Peter Clinch 
>>
>>>The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because I saw a post which clearly implied that some contributors might
>>>> be
>>>> blacklisted from the outset
>>>
>>>Whatever the implication, this has not been the case.
>>
>> I'll go so far as to ask TT for an MID because that isn't what I recall
>> happening either.
>
>If you read through the threads, I cited Simon's post, he explained what he
>meant, I accepted his explanation.
>
>In view of the huge amount of unhelpful traffic in this group,

I and other people have had to wade through it too, y'know.

> I shall now
>keep silent except insofar as any posts are relevant specifically to
>uk.legal.moderated.

That makes sense to me.

I think you may have got out of your depth in supporting or appearing to 
support the jms entity.  unnm (the other one) is amongst the 
playgrounds, feel free to post there and if you think about it, that is 
where ulm (which I think is exemplary) got its footing.

I don't really want to say this but I fear the jms has played you well.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:27:15 +0000, The Todal wrote:

> If that doesn't appear so to you, again it merely tells you that your
> comprehension skills are defective.  I chose the name because I like the
> book and know it well. Now tell me what Brooke is supposed to denote.
> Babbling?

To be honest I've no idea. My family have been using it since 1340, I 
assume one of my ancestors lived near a watercourse.

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and 
every moderation decision is unexplained and final.

"Wm..."  wrote in message 
news:lxMPlpPl+Y7KFwNZ@[127.0.0.1]...
> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 12:27:15  
> uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 
>
>>Your snobbery and your inflated sense of self-worth have certainly lit up
>>like a gantry of traffic lights. I hope you aren't dazzled and don't find
>>yourself being dragged under the rear wheels of a large vehicle.
>
> I think this would be better done via e-mail.

Fax would be another option, yes. And a telegram would be more concise.

"Wm..."  wrote in message 
news:g3cuk5QlPZ7KFw9n@[127.0.0.1]...
> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:58:06  
> uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 
>
>>
>>"Wm..."  wrote in message
>>news:Gs0Xi7HEZX7KFwZI@[127.0.0.1]...
>>> Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:39:28 
>>> uk.net.news.moderation Peter Clinch 
>>>
>>>>The Todal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Because I saw a post which clearly implied that some contributors 
>>>>> might
>>>>> be
>>>>> blacklisted from the outset
>>>>
>>>>Whatever the implication, this has not been the case.
>>>
>>> I'll go so far as to ask TT for an MID because that isn't what I recall
>>> happening either.
>>
>>If you read through the threads, I cited Simon's post, he explained what 
>>he
>>meant, I accepted his explanation.
>>
>>In view of the huge amount of unhelpful traffic in this group,
>
> I and other people have had to wade through it too, y'know.
>
>> I shall now
>>keep silent except insofar as any posts are relevant specifically to
>>uk.legal.moderated.
>
> That makes sense to me.

As you can see, I immediately made an exception when I read a post by 
someone called Brooke, casting doubt on my intelligence from the lofty 
heights of his own self-worth.  This is usenet, you know. No insult can go 
unavenged. And revenge is best served piping hot, rushed straight from the 
kitchen to the diner's lap.

>
> I think you may have got out of your depth in supporting or appearing to 
> support the jms entity.  unnm (the other one) is amongst the playgrounds, 
> feel free to post there and if you think about it, that is where ulm 
> (which I think is exemplary) got its footing.
>
> I don't really want to say this but I fear the jms has played you well.

If you don't really want to say it,  but decided in a great show of 
reluctance to say it anyway, maybe you can at least explain what it means, 
so that the full force of the insult hits home.  She does play well, yes. 
She has inexhausible energy and carries on hitting the ball over the net 
long after her opponent and all the spectators have gone home.

Simon Brooke <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:27:15 +0000, The Todal wrote:
> 
> > If that doesn't appear so to you, again it merely tells you that your
> > comprehension skills are defective.  I chose the name because I like the
> > book and know it well. Now tell me what Brooke is supposed to denote.
> > Babbling?
> 
> To be honest I've no idea. My family have been using it since 1340, I
> assume one of my ancestors lived near a watercourse.

ITYM "drain".

The Todal  wrote:

> > (In addition, when the same person does not appear to be familiar with
> > the text from which his own nom de net derives
> 
> If that doesn't appear so to you, again it merely tells you that your
> comprehension skills are defective.  I chose the name because I like the
> book and know it well.

I'm just gobsmacked that Brooke seems to think that being aware of the
writings of an American Humorist somehow makes him "a literary snob".
That makes me wonder if the titles of his usual reading material start
with "Harry Potter and..."

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:25:43  
uk.net.news.moderation Simon Brooke <stillyet+nntp@googlemail.com>

>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:27:15 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>
>> If that doesn't appear so to you, again it merely tells you that your
>> comprehension skills are defective.  I chose the name because I like the
>> book and know it well. Now tell me what Brooke is supposed to denote.
>> Babbling?
>
>To be honest I've no idea. My family have been using it since 1340, I
>assume one of my ancestors lived near a watercourse.

I think people that have an interest in genealogy won't care.

I've never managed to work out why they care so much.

My family has, apparently, been shagging all sorts of people for 
hundreds of years too.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 16:36:33  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>As you can see, I immediately made an exception when I read a post by
>someone called Brooke, casting doubt on my intelligence from the lofty
>heights of his own self-worth.  This is usenet, you know. No insult can go
>unavenged. And revenge is best served piping hot, rushed straight from the
>kitchen to the diner's lap.

We know that.  Choosing the jms entity path is a bit odd.

>> I think you may have got out of your depth in supporting or appearing to
>> support the jms entity.  unnm (the other one) is amongst the playgrounds,
>> feel free to post there and if you think about it, that is where ulm
>> (which I think is exemplary) got its footing.
>>
>> I don't really want to say this but I fear the jms has played you well.
>
>If you don't really want to say it,  but decided in a great show of
>reluctance to say it anyway, maybe you can at least explain what it means,
>so that the full force of the insult hits home.

I'll leave it at what I said.

>  She does play well, yes.
>She has inexhausible energy and carries on hitting the ball over the net
>long after her opponent and all the spectators have gone home.

shrug, if you know that why play then?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

"Wm..."  wrote in message 
news:0AWbJDYOVc7KFwsA@[127.0.0.1]...

>
>>  She does play well, yes.
>>She has inexhausible energy and carries on hitting the ball over the net
>>long after her opponent and all the spectators have gone home.
>
> shrug, if you know that why play then?

Now I'm totally confused. It's you who keeps winding up jms by responding to 
her every post in a belittling or sarcastic way, prompting her to ever more 
aggressive counter-attacks.

Whereas I merely observed on one or two occasions that she had posted some 
very sensible stuff, that I had read. In response to which, she didn't post 
followups to what I had said.

Blimey, if only everyone could behave as I do, we wouldn't get these 
flamewars. But you carry on, why don't you, and make sure you  blame me for 
what happens.

In message , Wm... 
 writes
>
>Presuming someone from the urcm moderation team gets to read this: has 
>the jms actually posted anything to the group yet?  Moans about the 
>moderation don't count, I'm thinking of an actual article worth 
>discussing with cyclists.
>
Not according to the logs:

<http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/urcm.logs>

Leastways not under the name of Judith Smith or JMS.

Then again, I don't think they were ever interested in cycling.

-- 
Chris French

The Todal  wrote:

> > I don't really want to say this but I fear the jms has played you well.
> 
> If you don't really want to say it,  but decided in a great show of 
> reluctance to say it anyway, maybe you can at least explain what it means,
> so that the full force of the insult hits home.  She does play well, yes.
> She has inexhausible energy and carries on hitting the ball over the net
> long after her opponent and all the spectators have gone home.

You are speaking to Wm, the man who posts a reply to everything he reads
on Usenet, and who can single-handedly guarantee that while anyone else
still wants to play, they will find someone ready to hit the poor tired
old ball back again for another go.

Daniele
-- 
Wanted: reasonably decent road bike/frame with horizontal 
drop-outs for fixed-wheel conversion project (Cardiff)

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:03:27  
uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 

>
>"Wm..."  wrote in message
>news:0AWbJDYOVc7KFwsA@[127.0.0.1]...
>
>>
>>>  She does play well, yes.
>>>She has inexhausible energy and carries on hitting the ball over the net
>>>long after her opponent and all the spectators have gone home.
>>
>> shrug, if you know that why play then?
>
>Now I'm totally confused. It's you who keeps winding up jms by responding to
>her every post in a belittling or sarcastic way, prompting her to ever more
>aggressive counter-attacks.

No-one set out to attack the jms, she invented her opponents; went out 
deliberately to find them.  Think about that.

>Whereas I merely observed on one or two occasions that she had posted some
>very sensible stuff, that I had read. In response to which, she didn't post
>followups to what I had said.

Most people can manage a sensible post every now and then.  jms gets it 
wrong most of the time.  We are talking about thousands of postings.

>Blimey, if only everyone could behave as I do, we wouldn't get these
>flamewars. But you carry on, why don't you, and make sure you  blame me for
>what happens.

I know when the fun has been done.  I'm not sure the jms does.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:36:07 
<1j8im38.108zakvh3i6plN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> 
uk.net.news.moderation D.M. Procida 


>The Todal  wrote:
>
>> > I don't really want to say this but I fear the jms has played you well.
>>
>> If you don't really want to say it,  but decided in a great show of
>> reluctance to say it anyway, maybe you can at least explain what it means,
>> so that the full force of the insult hits home.  She does play well, yes.
>> She has inexhausible energy and carries on hitting the ball over the net
>> long after her opponent and all the spectators have gone home.
>
>You are speaking to Wm, the man who posts a reply to everything he reads
>on Usenet,

That simply isn't true.

> and who can single-handedly guarantee that while anyone else
>still wants to play, they will find someone ready to hit the poor tired
>old ball back again for another go.

You overestimate my abilities, D.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:19:36  
uk.net.news.moderation Chris French 

>In message , Wm... 
> writes
>>
>>Presuming someone from the urcm moderation team gets to read this: has 
>>the jms actually posted anything to the group yet?  Moans about the 
>>moderation don't count, I'm thinking of an actual article worth 
>>discussing with cyclists.
>>
>Not according to the logs:
>
><http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~webstump/urcm.logs>
>
>Leastways not under the name of Judith Smith or JMS.
>
>Then again, I don't think they were ever interested in cycling.

Why do you think TT couldn't work that out before getting involved?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

In message , Wm... 
 writes
>Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:36:07 
><1j8im38.108zakvh3i6plN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> 
>uk.net.news.moderation D.M. Procida 
>
>
>>The Todal  wrote:
>>
>>> > I don't really want to say this but I fear the jms has played you well.
>>>
>>> If you don't really want to say it,  but decided in a great show of
>>> reluctance to say it anyway, maybe you can at least explain what it means,
>>> so that the full force of the insult hits home.  She does play well, yes.
>>> She has inexhausible energy and carries on hitting the ball over the net
>>> long after her opponent and all the spectators have gone home.
>>
>>You are speaking to Wm, the man who posts a reply to everything he reads
>>on Usenet,
>
>That simply isn't true.

It certainly seems to apply to whatever the latest bit of drivel jms has 
come out with
-- 
Chris French

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:29:08 <QmX4cKCU+e7KNAKn@gauva.familyfrench.co.uk> 
uk.net.news.moderation Chris French 

>In message , Wm... 
> writes
>>Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:36:07 
>><1j8im38.108zakvh3i6plN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> 
>>uk.net.news.moderation D.M. Procida 
>>
>>
>>>The Todal  wrote:
>>>
>>>> > I don't really want to say this but I fear the jms has played you well.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't really want to say it,  but decided in a great show of
>>>> reluctance to say it anyway, maybe you can at least explain what it means,
>>>> so that the full force of the insult hits home.  She does play well, yes.
>>>> She has inexhausible energy and carries on hitting the ball over the net
>>>> long after her opponent and all the spectators have gone home.
>>>
>>>You are speaking to Wm, the man who posts a reply to everything he reads
>>>on Usenet,
>>
>>That simply isn't true.
>
>It certainly seems to apply to whatever the latest bit of drivel jms 
>has come out with

If I look at it from your point of view it may seem like that.

The truth is I don't post as often as you think.

Perhaps you don't think I read much?

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wm... wrote:
> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 20:29:08
<QmX4cKCU+e7KNAKn@gauva.familyfrench.co.uk>
> uk.net.news.moderation Chris French

>
>> In message , Wm...
>>  writes
>>> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:36:07
>>>
<1j8im38.108zakvh3i6plN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-jui
ce.co.uk>
>>> uk.net.news.moderation D.M. Procida
>>> 
>>>
>>>> The Todal  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I don't really want to say this but I fear the jms
has played
>>>>>> you well.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't really want to say it,  but decided in a
great show
>>>>> of reluctance to say it anyway, maybe you can at least
explain
>>>>> what it means, so that the full force of the insult
hits home.
>>>>> She does play well, yes. She has inexhausible energy
and carries
>>>>> on hitting the ball over the net long after her
opponent and all
>>>>> the spectators have gone home.
>>>>
>>>> You are speaking to Wm, the man who posts a reply to
everything he
>>>> reads
>>>> on Usenet,
>>>
>>> That simply isn't true.
>>
>> It certainly seems to apply to whatever the latest bit of
drivel jms
>> has come out with
>
> If I look at it from your point of view it may seem like
that.
>
> The truth is I don't post as often as you think.
>
> Perhaps you don't think I read much?
>
> --
> Wm...
> Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Hmm! I do (sometimes) think that you appear to play the game
of 'Poke The Cat With A Pointy Stick' though Wm... Each to
his own I suppose ...


-- 
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in
your face

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:22:27 <pZmHm.14975$y%.1504@newsfe29.ams2> 
uk.net.news.moderation Colin Nelson 

>Hmm! I do (sometimes) think that you appear to play the game
>of 'Poke The Cat With A Pointy Stick' though Wm... Each to
>his own I suppose ...

Have a guess at my read vs replied to ratio

I'm more of a dog person if it matters.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Wm... wrote:
> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 21:22:27
<pZmHm.14975$y%.1504@newsfe29.ams2>
> uk.net.news.moderation Colin Nelson

>
>> Hmm! I do (sometimes) think that you appear to play the
game
>> of 'Poke The Cat With A Pointy Stick' though Wm... Each
to
>> his own I suppose ...
>
> Have a guess at my read vs replied to ratio
>
> I'm more of a dog person if it matters.
>
> --
> Wm...
> Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Terrier? <wink>


-- 
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in
your face

Sun, 1 Nov 2009 23:07:27 <QvoHm.28091$7Y2.5572@newsfe27.ams2> 
uk.net.news.moderation Colin Nelson 

>Terrier? <wink>

A terrier would quote better.

-- 
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:39:53 +0000, Wm... wrote:

> Sun, 1 Nov 2009 18:03:27 
> uk.net.news.moderation The Todal 
> 
> 
>>"Wm..."  wrote in message
>>news:0AWbJDYOVc7KFwsA@[127.0.0.1]...
>>
>>
>>>>  She does play well, yes.
>>>>She has inexhausible energy and carries on hitting the ball over the
>>>>net long after her opponent and all the spectators have gone home.
>>>
>>> shrug, if you know that why play then?
>>
>>Now I'm totally confused. It's you who keeps winding up jms by
>>responding to her every post in a belittling or sarcastic way, prompting
>>her to ever more aggressive counter-attacks.
> 
> No-one set out to attack the jms, she invented her opponents; went out
> deliberately to find them.  Think about that.

Now who's being disingenuous? If you and Guy had left her alone, she'd 
have got bored months ago, and gone of to pursue her hysterical vendettas 
somewhere else. But, no, not you - the inveterate last-word-havers.

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and 
every moderation decision is unexplained and final.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:11:56 +0000, Wm... wrote:

> My understanding was that everyone would be able to have a first post to
> the group, be able to show themselves to be reasonable, be able to
> self-moderate effectively.  Not a lot different to ulm, I thought.
> 
> As far as I can see, with very few exceptions, this is what has
> happened.

There are no exceptions. No-one at all has yet been blacklisted.

> Presuming someone from the urcm moderation team gets to read this: has
> the jms actually posted anything to the group yet?

No, nothing at all as of yet, under that name. Whether she's posted under 
a new nym or not I couldn't say, but if she has she's behaving herself - 
which is the object of the exercise, after all.

-- 
stillyet@googlemail.com (Simon Brooke) http://www.journeyman.cc/~simon/
It's much better if the moderators are mysterious and arbitrary, and 
every moderation decision is unexplained and final.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:15:46 +0000, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:23:10  
>uk.net.news.moderation jms 
>
>
>>someone who does not shit from people
>
>does anyone know what that means?


Well done Worm..  good to see that you are reading my posts and trying
to understand them; I trust that you find them educational.

I missed out the word "take".

On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 13:35:11 +0000, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:39:11  
>uk.net.news.moderation Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid>
>
>>"Wm..."  wrote in
>>news:HNtH6FFi3W7KFwLl@[127.0.0.1]:
>>
>>> Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:23:10
>>> 
>>> uk.net.news.moderation jms 
>>>
>>>
>>>>someone who does not shit from people
>>>
>>> does anyone know what that means?
>>>
>>I think it means there is a verb missing between "not" and "shit", and
>>it is a verb which can take the preposition "from".  Does that narrow
>>it down at all?
>
>Yes, I could have put the extra word in myself.  The problem is the jms 
>wants us to believe her words are true as written.

Hello Worm...


Oh - you mean like someone says they will do A if you do B - and then
they go back on their word and don't conclude their part of the
agreement.

There are some dishonourable people out there who do that sort of
thing.

They really are considered by many people to be lowlife.

In message , jms 
 writes
>On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 11:15:46 +0000, "Wm..."
> wrote:
>>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:23:10 
>>uk.net.news.moderation jms 
>>
>>>someone who does not shit from people
>>
>>does anyone know what that means?
>
>Well done Worm..  good to see that you are reading my posts and trying
>to understand them; I trust that you find them educational.
>
>I missed out the word "take".

If you do not take shit from people, how _do_ you mulch your roses?

-- 
< Paul >