%steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) writes:

>  wrote:
>
>> in many cases and in some situations would be shared by a substantial
>> number of urc (and, I expect, urcm) posters, but your pointless
>> pedantry, your continual attempts to work every thread around to
>> discussion of them and your tedious second-rate-Socratic dialectical
>> style make conversation with you only marginally more interesting than
>> trying to debate with Doug.
>
> None of the above is a fit reason to block posts to a newsgroup.

I agree, but I wasn't talking about blocking posts, I was talking about
reasons that Matt B might not find himself on the auto-approval list.
urcm needs at most *one* rehearsal of the reasons that (for example)
cars might legally be stopped in a cycle reservoir, it doesn't need
someone to pop up and make the same bloody point every single bloody
time the issue is mentioned, and on past performance Matt is unable to
restrain himself.


-dan

Matt B  wrote in
news:7l0bt5F3b30b9U1@mid.individual.net: 



> 
> /If/ the moderators do their job properly they will block
> subsequent posts which restate the widely held, but mistaken view
> that cars cannot stop there.  If they miss one, then they should
> allow the correction again. 
> 
Assuming newsgroup readers are normal human beings, no this is not 
necessary.  They will either know the answer, have read previous 
threads ad nauseam, or be prepared to do a little research before 
believing an assertion on usenet.  No, they do not need an automatic 
rebuttal every time an untrue statement is made. That way lies madness.


-- 
Percy Picacity

Percy Picacity wrote:
> Matt B  wrote in
> news:7l0bt5F3b30b9U1@mid.individual.net: 
> 
>> /If/ the moderators do their job properly they will block
>> subsequent posts which restate the widely held, but mistaken view
>> that cars cannot stop there.  If they miss one, then they should
>> allow the correction again. 
>>
> Assuming newsgroup readers are normal human beings, no this is not 
> necessary.  They will either know the answer, have read previous 
> threads ad nauseam, or be prepared to do a little research before 
> believing an assertion on usenet.  No, they do not need an automatic 
> rebuttal every time an untrue statement is made. That way lies madness.

Think of it from another point of view...  If I made a post (and by some 
miracle it got through) asserting, say, that the "compulsory" in 
"compulsory cycle lanes" meant that it was compulsory for cyclists to 
use them and to stay in them.  Should the moderators, do you think, then 
block any subsequent post attempting to correct /that/ nonsense?

-- 
Matt B

Matt B  wrote in
news:7l0pifF3bs2plU1@mid.individual.net: 

> Percy Picacity wrote:
>> Matt B  wrote in
>> news:7l0bt5F3b30b9U1@mid.individual.net: 
>> 
>>> /If/ the moderators do their job properly they will block
>>> subsequent posts which restate the widely held, but mistaken
>>> view that cars cannot stop there.  If they miss one, then they
>>> should allow the correction again. 
>>>
>> Assuming newsgroup readers are normal human beings, no this is
>> not necessary.  They will either know the answer, have read
>> previous threads ad nauseam, or be prepared to do a little
>> research before believing an assertion on usenet.  No, they do
>> not need an automatic rebuttal every time an untrue statement is
>> made. That way lies madness. 
> 
> Think of it from another point of view...  If I made a post (and
> by some miracle it got through) asserting, say, that the
> "compulsory" in "compulsory cycle lanes" meant that it was
> compulsory for cyclists to use them and to stay in them.  Should
> the moderators, do you think, then block any subsequent post
> attempting to correct /that/ nonsense? 
> 

If the contrary point had been made fairly prominently in the 
previous week or two, and discussion had ensued, why not, if they 
thought a pointless argument was about to be repeated?

-- 
Percy Picacity