I wondered what the policy of the URCM moderators was wrt to emails sent 
to the "urcm-moderators@..." address, as recommended for queries on some 
of the rejection emails sent out.

The reason that I ask is that I have sent three queries to that address 
since Monday, but had no response at all - to any of them, so I'm not 
sure if they even arrived there.

-- 
Matt B

On Oct 28, 1:15 pm, Matt B  wrote:
> I wondered what the policy of the URCM moderators was wrt to emails sent
> to the "urcm-moderators@..." address, as recommended for queries on some
> of the rejection emails sent out.
>
> The reason that I ask is that I have sent three queries to that address
> since Monday, but had no response at all - to any of them, so I'm not
> sure if they even arrived there.

They arrived.

Simon Brooke wrote:
> On Oct 28, 1:15 pm, Matt B  wrote:
>> I wondered what the policy of the URCM moderators was wrt to emails sent
>> to the "urcm-moderators@..." address, as recommended for queries on some
>> of the rejection emails sent out.
>>
>> The reason that I ask is that I have sent three queries to that address
>> since Monday, but had no response at all - to any of them, so I'm not
>> sure if they even arrived there.
> 
> They arrived.

Thanks.  Will they eventually be replied to do you think?

-- 
Matt B

Matt B wrote:
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> On Oct 28, 1:15 pm, Matt B  wrote:
>>> I wondered what the policy of the URCM moderators was wrt to emails sent
>>> to the "urcm-moderators@..." address, as recommended for queries on some
>>> of the rejection emails sent out.
>>>
>>> The reason that I ask is that I have sent three queries to that address
>>> since Monday, but had no response at all - to any of them, so I'm not
>>> sure if they even arrived there.
>>
>> They arrived.
> 
> Thanks.  Will they eventually be replied to do you think?

That would depend on what turns out to be felt about them which 
will take some degree of time and thought, so what I think right 
now isn't actually useful information for you.

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 article , 
matt.bourke@nospam.london.com says...
> 
> Simon Brooke wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 1:15 pm, Matt B  wrote:
> >> I wondered what the policy of the URCM moderators was wrt to emails sent
> >> to the "urcm-moderators@..." address, as recommended for queries on some
> >> of the rejection emails sent out.
> >>
> >> The reason that I ask is that I have sent three queries to that address
> >> since Monday, but had no response at all - to any of them, so I'm not
> >> sure if they even arrived there.
> > 
> > They arrived.
> 
> Thanks.  Will they eventually be replied to do you think?

No, since you're just trying to be difficult by sending such messages.  
The sooner you accept that non-anti-motorist opinions like yours are not 
welcome on URCM, and will be censored every single time, the better for 
all of us.  Please leave the clique and their mates to bitch about 
motorists in peace without posting irritating awkward facts which they 
would rather pretend weren't the case.  It's not their fault if they 
can't hack the fact that speed cameras kill people, such is their 
determination to support anti-motorist measures no matter what the 
consequences.

Response to Peter Clinch:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> 
> > No, since you're just <snip>  
> 
> You're not a mod, don't engage in their discussions, so it's a 
> pretty value-free guess, in what amounts to a pretty value free 
> posting.
> 
> You've previously opined that he just won't get any message and, if 
> you're right then why repeat one over and again?


Because it's not Guy.

-- 
Mark, UK.
ABOVE THIS LINE IS FOR SIGNALS USE ONLY

Mark McNeill wrote:
> Response to Peter Clinch:
> 
>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>
>>> No, since you're just <snip>  
>> You're not a mod, don't engage in their discussions, so it's a 
>> pretty value-free guess, in what amounts to a pretty value free 
>> posting.
>>
>> You've previously opined that he just won't get any message and, if 
>> you're right then why repeat one over and again?
> 
> 
> Because it's not Guy.

Ho hum, well, successful trolling points for that one then.

And toadal can get some empirical evidence of what trolling is...

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 13:15:45 +0000, Matt B
 wrote:

>I wondered what the policy of the URCM moderators was wrt to emails sent 
>to the "urcm-moderators@..." address, as recommended for queries on some 
>of the rejection emails sent out.
>
>The reason that I ask is that I have sent three queries to that address 
>since Monday, but had no response at all - to any of them, so I'm not 
>sure if they even arrived there.


You weren't posting from Hotmail or Live were you?

Jackson has his little system configured to reject them.

It is quite pathetic.

I've been on about it for months now.

He thinks he is being big or clever or similar; he is not - he is
being a knob.

-- 
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 06:16:16 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
 wrote:

>On Oct 28, 1:15 pm, Matt B  wrote:
>> I wondered what the policy of the URCM moderators was wrt to emails sent
>> to the "urcm-moderators@..." address, as recommended for queries on some
>> of the rejection emails sent out.
>>
>> The reason that I ask is that I have sent three queries to that address
>> since Monday, but had no response at all - to any of them, so I'm not
>> sure if they even arrived there.
>
>They arrived.



........ and were ignored.

--  

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 19:58:03 +0000, Peter Clinch
 wrote:

>Mark McNeill wrote:
>> Response to Peter Clinch:
>> 
>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, since you're just <snip>  
>>> You're not a mod, don't engage in their discussions, so it's a 
>>> pretty value-free guess, in what amounts to a pretty value free 
>>> posting.
>>>
>>> You've previously opined that he just won't get any message and, if 
>>> you're right then why repeat one over and again?
>> 
>> 
>> Because it's not Guy.
>
>Ho hum, well, successful trolling points for that one then.
>
>And toadal can get some empirical evidence of what trolling is...
>
>Pete.


Sorry - are you saying that forging someone's name is called trolling?
--  

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

Peter Clinch wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 1:15 pm, Matt B  wrote:
>>>> I wondered what the policy of the URCM moderators was wrt to emails 
>>>> sent
>>>> to the "urcm-moderators@..." address, as recommended for queries on 
>>>> some
>>>> of the rejection emails sent out.
>>>>
>>>> The reason that I ask is that I have sent three queries to that address
>>>> since Monday, but had no response at all - to any of them, so I'm not
>>>> sure if they even arrived there.
>>>
>>> They arrived.
>>
>> Thanks.  Will they eventually be replied to do you think?
> 
> That would depend on what turns out to be felt about them which will 
> take some degree of time and thought, so what I think right now isn't 
> actually useful information for you.

Have the moderators had a chance to look at them yet?  We've been urged 
not to air our grievances here, but by email to the advertised address.

I'm beginning to think there must be a massive backlog of complaints for 
it take more than four days for eleven moderators to respond to the mail.

At this rate, by the time there is a reply the threads and posts being 
referred to will probably be history, and what were (in my case) invalid 
rejections will be too late to remedy.

Or are the replies being deliberately delayed as a crude censorship tactic?

Shall I post all my rejected posts, with the "reasons" here?

-- 
Matt B

On Oct 30, 4:59 pm, Matt B  wrote:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
> > Matt B wrote:
> >> Simon Brooke wrote:
> >>> On Oct 28, 1:15 pm, Matt B  wrote:
> >>>> I wondered what the policy of the URCM moderators was wrt to emails
> >>>> sent
> >>>> to the "urcm-moderators@..." address, as recommended for queries on
> >>>> some
> >>>> of the rejection emails sent out.
>
> >>>> The reason that I ask is that I have sent three queries to that address
> >>>> since Monday, but had no response at all - to any of them, so I'm not
> >>>> sure if they even arrived there.
>
> >>> They arrived.
>
> >> Thanks.  Will they eventually be replied to do you think?
>
> > That would depend on what turns out to be felt about them which will
> > take some degree of time and thought, so what I think right now isn't
> > actually useful information for you.
>
> Have the moderators had a chance to look at them yet?  We've been urged
> not to air our grievances here, but by email to the advertised address.
>
> I'm beginning to think there must be a massive backlog of complaints for
> it take more than four days for eleven moderators to respond to the mail.
>
> At this rate, by the time there is a reply the threads and posts being
> referred to will probably be history, and what were (in my case) invalid
> rejections will be too late to remedy.
>
> Or are the replies being deliberately delayed as a crude censorship tactic?
>
> Shall I post all my rejected posts, with the "reasons" here?

Yes, if you disagree with the reasons[1], that seems the most sensible
course of action.

James

[1] on reflection, "if you disagree with the reasons so strongly that
you are not willing or able just to modify the post and re-submit"

In message 
, 
James  writes
>On Oct 30, 4:59 pm, Matt B  wrote:
>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>> > Matt B wrote:
>> >> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> >>> On Oct 28, 1:15 pm, Matt B  wrote:
>> >>>> I wondered what the policy of the URCM moderators was wrt to emails
>> >>>> sent
>> >>>> to the "urcm-moderators@..." address, as recommended for queries on
>> >>>> some
>> >>>> of the rejection emails sent out.
>>
>> >>>> The reason that I ask is that I have sent three queries to that address
>> >>>> since Monday, but had no response at all - to any of them, so I'm not
>> >>>> sure if they even arrived there.
>>
>> >>> They arrived.
>>
>> >> Thanks.  Will they eventually be replied to do you think?
>>
>> > That would depend on what turns out to be felt about them which will
>> > take some degree of time and thought, so what I think right now isn't
>> > actually useful information for you.
>>
>> Have the moderators had a chance to look at them yet?  We've been urged
>> not to air our grievances here, but by email to the advertised address.
>>
>> I'm beginning to think there must be a massive backlog of complaints for
>> it take more than four days for eleven moderators to respond to the mail.
>>
>> At this rate, by the time there is a reply the threads and posts being
>> referred to will probably be history, and what were (in my case) invalid
>> rejections will be too late to remedy.
>>
>> Or are the replies being deliberately delayed as a crude censorship tactic?
>>
>> Shall I post all my rejected posts, with the "reasons" here?
>
>Yes, if you disagree with the reasons[1], that seems the most sensible
>course of action.
>
>James
>
>[1] on reflection, "if you disagree with the reasons so strongly that
>you are not willing or able just to modify the post and re-submit"

Yup, I think that's what I would be doing at this a point.
-- 
Chris French

Chris French wrote:
> In message
>
<cae980dd-2232-4829-a300-c62caa81a864@d9g2000prh.googlegroup
s.com>,
> James  writes
>> On Oct 30, 4:59 pm, Matt B
 wrote:
>>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 28, 1:15 pm, Matt B
 wrote:
>>>>>>> I wondered what the policy of the URCM moderators
was wrt to
>>>>>>> emails sent
>>>>>>> to the "urcm-moderators@..." address, as recommended
for
>>>>>>> queries on some
>>>>>>> of the rejection emails sent out.
>>>
>>>>>>> The reason that I ask is that I have sent three
queries to that
>>>>>>> address since Monday, but had no response at all -
to any of
>>>>>>> them, so I'm not sure if they even arrived there.
>>>
>>>>>> They arrived.
>>>
>>>>> Thanks. Will they eventually be replied to do you
think?
>>>
>>>> That would depend on what turns out to be felt about
them which
>>>> will
>>>> take some degree of time and thought, so what I think
right now
>>>> isn't actually useful information for you.
>>>
>>> Have the moderators had a chance to look at them yet?
We've been
>>> urged
>>> not to air our grievances here, but by email to the
advertised
>>> address.
>>>
>>> I'm beginning to think there must be a massive backlog
of
>>> complaints for
>>> it take more than four days for eleven moderators to
respond to the
>>> mail.
>>>
>>> At this rate, by the time there is a reply the threads
and posts
>>> being referred to will probably be history, and what
were (in my
>>> case) invalid rejections will be too late to remedy.
>>>
>>> Or are the replies being deliberately delayed as a crude
censorship
>>> tactic?
>>>
>>> Shall I post all my rejected posts, with the "reasons"
here?
>>
>> Yes, if you disagree with the reasons[1], that seems the
most
>> sensible
>> course of action.
>>
>> James
>>
>> [1] on reflection, "if you disagree with the reasons so
strongly that
>> you are not willing or able just to modify the post and
re-submit"
>
> Yup, I think that's what I would be doing at this a point.
> --
> Chris French

Posting on urcm may be a learning curve for some.


-- 
Colin N.

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

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:43:14 <23CGm.27046$X75.19768@newsfe20.ams2> 
uk.net.news.moderation Colin Nelson 


>Posting on urcm may be a learning curve for some.

wc gently told me off for over-quoting.

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

On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:59:09 +0000, Matt B
 wrote:

>Shall I post all my rejected posts, with the "reasons" here?

That seems a reasonable thing to do: just the post and the reason for
the rejection will suffice.  We don't need the headers as I am sure
the mods will post if you are making things up.
--
Vote online for cycling in the
Directory of Social Change Awards
www.britishschoolofcycling.com

Matt B wrote:
> 
> Shall I post all my rejected posts, with the "reasons" here?

Due to popular demand, and due to the fact that I still haven't had a 
response from the moderators to the emails, below are the *four* that 
were rejected as "needlessly inflammatory".

Depending on the response to these, I may post the:-
  *six* "repetitious posting which we feel does not bring new 
information to the discussion"
  *six* "not in accordance with the charter"
  *one* "overly specific, not constructive, or is part of a 
meta-discussion which has got out of hand"

Let me know what you think.

===== Post 1 ===========================================================
Rejection reason:
needlessly inflammatory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: 2009-10-25 17:05:05 GMT
Subject: Re: 3feet2Pass - No. 10 petition
ID: 
Time taken to reject: 1h20m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil W Lee wrote:
 > "Just zis Guy, you know?"  considered Sat, 24
 > Oct 2009 22:42:13 +0100 the perfect time to write:
 >
 >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:00:51 +0100, bod43  wrote:
 >>
 >>> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister
 >>> to introduce legislation that all motorists must allow
 >>> a minimum of 3 feet in distance between their
 >>> vehicle and a cyclist that they drive past."
 >> Terrible idea - the distance is insufficient. I think 1.5m is a
 >> distance used in other places, but even that is a bit skimpy
 >> sometimes.  The problem is that drivers will think 3' is sufficient
 >> when passing on a single-carriageway at 60mph.
 >>
 > I'm strongly inclined to agree.

Me too.  The idea of such a law is ridiculous.

 > A 1.5m would also have the benefit of being seen as a "European
 > harmonisation" measure.

A 1.5m what?  Did you think he was calling for a law stipulating 1.5m as
a minimum passing clearance?  And what do you mean by "European
harmonisation", and what benefit do you think harmonising would bring?

 > Anything less is almost an endorsement of bad driving, as it is
 > considerably less then the currently recommended "at least as much
 > space as for a car".

By "anything less", do you include no law at all, or do you just mean a
law stipulating less?

--
Matt B
2009-10-25 17:05:00 GMT
========================================================================

===== Post 2 (another version of post 1) ===============================
Rejection reason:
needlessly inflammatory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: 2009-10-25 18:32:26 GMT
Subject: Re: 3feet2Pass - No. 10 petition
ID: 
Time taken to reject: 1h52m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil W Lee wrote:
 > "Just zis Guy, you know?"  considered Sat, 24
 > Oct 2009 22:42:13 +0100 the perfect time to write:
 >
 >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:00:51 +0100, bod43  wrote:
 >>
 >>> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister
 >>> to introduce legislation that all motorists must allow
 >>> a minimum of 3 feet in distance between their
 >>> vehicle and a cyclist that they drive past."
 >> Terrible idea - the distance is insufficient. I think 1.5m is a
 >> distance used in other places, but even that is a bit skimpy
 >> sometimes.  The problem is that drivers will think 3' is sufficient
 >> when passing on a single-carriageway at 60mph.
 >>
 > I'm strongly inclined to agree.

Me too.  Such a law is unlikely to be enforced and is unlikely to be
respected.

 > A 1.5m would also have the benefit of being seen as a "European
 > harmonisation" measure.

Would you advocate such a law if the minimum gap was set at 1.5m?  What
benefit do you think European harmonisation would bring?

 > Anything less is almost an endorsement of bad driving, as it is
 > considerably less then the currently recommended "at least as much
 > space as for a car".

By "anything less", do you include no law at all, or do you just mean a
law stipulating less of a gap?

--
Matt B
2009-10-25 18:33:01 GMT
========================================================================

===== Post 3 (yet another version of post 1) ===========================
Rejection reason:
I have explained the answers to the questions you are asking here.  I 
think the
reference to European harmonisation is a reference to "I think 1.5m is a
distance used in other places" from Guy.

needlessly inflammatory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: 2009-10-25 23:18:18 GMT
Subject: Re: 3feet2Pass - No. 10 petition
ID: 
Time taken to reject: 12h49m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil W Lee wrote:
 > "Just zis Guy, you know?"  considered Sat, 24
 > Oct 2009 22:42:13 +0100 the perfect time to write:
 >
 >> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:00:51 +0100, bod43  wrote:
 >>
 >>> "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister
 >>> to introduce legislation that all motorists must allow
 >>> a minimum of 3 feet in distance between their
 >>> vehicle and a cyclist that they drive past."
 >> Terrible idea - the distance is insufficient. I think 1.5m is a
 >> distance used in other places, but even that is a bit skimpy
 >> sometimes.  The problem is that drivers will think 3' is sufficient
 >> when passing on a single-carriageway at 60mph.
 >>
 > I'm strongly inclined to agree.
 > A 1.5m would also have the benefit of being seen as a "European
 > harmonisation" measure.
 > Anything less is almost an endorsement of bad driving, as it is
 > considerably less then the currently recommended "at least as much
 > space as for a car".

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

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

===== Post 4 ===========================================================
Rejection reason:
The first paragraph is thinly veiled grinding of the motoring offences 
axe, I
think.  The second paragraph does not relate to cycling.

needlessly inflammatory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: 2009-10-28 12:59:01 GMT
Subject: Re: FPNs for cyclists in Oxford with no lights
ID: 
Time taken to reject: 0h54m
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D.M. Procida wrote:
 > Matt B  wrote:
 >
 >> 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.
 >
 > It's a start, at least. I can't see any other way of doing it that
 > wouldn't be excessively draconian, or that would ensure that lights get
 > purchased.

I agree that it is an enlightened way of ensuring that a law is better
complied with.  A similar system could probably be used in response to
other similarly benign technical offences.  We could start a list. ;-)

 > I got stopped in my car once because a light wasn't working. I was given
 > a notice saying I had to get it fixed and would be prosecuted if I
 > didn't provide evidence within seven days, so it seems to work in a
 > similar way to that.

As I understand it, that is the normal way to deal with such "difficult
to prove intent" offences, and no FPN is actually issued up front.  That
is because, light bulbs, in your case, have a habit of failing
unpredictably, and it would be difficult to disprove the valid defence
of "it was working when I checked it just before I got into the car".

--
Matt B
========================================================================

-- 
Matt B

jms  wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:58:03 +0000, Peter Clinch
>  wrote:
> 
> >Mark McNeill wrote:
> >> Response to Peter Clinch:
> >> 
> >>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> No, since you're just <snip>  
> >>> You're not a mod, don't engage in their discussions, so it's a 
> >>> pretty value-free guess, in what amounts to a pretty value free 
> >>> posting.
> >>>
> >>> You've previously opined that he just won't get any message and, if
> >>> you're right then why repeat one over and again?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Because it's not Guy.
> >
> >Ho hum, well, successful trolling points for that one then.
> >
> >And toadal can get some empirical evidence of what trolling is...
> >
> >Pete.
> 
> 
> Sorry - are you saying that forging someone's name is called trolling?

you think that post by "guy" wasn't?

forging is almost allways trolling, not 100% but close enough.


roger

-- 
www.rogermerriman.com

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:58:03 +0000, Peter Clinch wrote:

> Mark McNeill wrote:
>> Response to Peter Clinch:
>> 
>>> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, since you're just <snip>
>>> You're not a mod, don't engage in their discussions, so it's a pretty
>>> value-free guess, in what amounts to a pretty value free posting.
>>>
>>> You've previously opined that he just won't get any message and, if
>>> you're right then why repeat one over and again?
>> 
>> 
>> Because it's not Guy.
> 
> Ho hum, well, successful trolling points for that one then.
> 
> And toadal can get some empirical evidence of what trolling is...

It's worth pointing out that three people are currently posting as 'Just 
zis guy, you know?', only one of them being Guy. The headers distinguish 
them (this one, for example, uses the email address 
'guy.chapman@spancop.net' as opposed to the real Guy's 'spamcop.net' - 
but, frankly, if you should be able to tell them apart on style and 
content.

-- 
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.