I just want to talk about cycling but in the past few weeks it has
been more like a children's playground in here! I'moff to other forums
where people actually talk about bikes and don't argue and get upset
over people they have never met or care about. You lot are so sad. Get
a life!

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:09:18 -0700 (PDT), natox78@googlemail.com wrote:

>I just want to talk about cycling but in the past few weeks it has
>been more like a children's playground in here! I'moff to other forums
>where people actually talk about bikes and don't argue and get upset
>over people they have never met or care about. You lot are so sad. Get
>a life!

Well said - a number of people here are actually worse than the
"trolls" they accuse of disrupting this group.

On 2 Oct, 09:49, John Gates  wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:09:18 -0700 (PDT), nato...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >I just want to talk about cycling but in the past few weeks it has
> >been more like a children's playground in here! I'moff to other forums
> >where people actually talk about bikes and don't argue and get upset
> >over people they have never met or care about. You lot are so sad. Get
> >a life!
>
> Well said - a number of people here are actually worse than the
> "trolls" they accuse of disrupting this group.

So true! Things have got very personal too. Where is the love I say!
We all ride bikes, lets enjoy and embrace that rather than having
silly hang ups and grudges against people who are essentially just
words on a screen to us.

natox78@googlemail.com wrote:
> You lot are so sad.

Actually, I think it's only 5-8 people
doing the flame war.

The rest of us sometimes mention bikes :-)

   BugBear

On 2 Oct, 10:42, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> nato...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > You lot are so sad.
>
> Actually, I think it's only 5-8 people
> doing the flame war.
>
> The rest of us sometimes mention bikes :-)
>
>    BugBear

That's true BugBear. I am of course not including you in this lot and
one must say sorry for not saying a thankyou to those who do. xx

I agree 100%. It's getting pretty bloody bad when the personal attack
threads outnumber even the watch spam!

I also agree that the "troll fighers" are at least as responsible as
the "trolls" they are trying to fight against. If you just ignore
them, maybe they won't go away, but they sure as hell will post alot
less!

Is there any hope for uk.rec.cycling, or is a moderated forum the only
solution for people like me who want to talk about cycling, with all
its pains and glories, and not get overwhelmed by childish bickering?

-Myra

On 2 Oct, 11:26, Myra in Cambridge  wrote:
> I agree 100%. It's getting pretty bloody bad when the personal attack
> threads outnumber even the watch spam!
>
> I also agree that the "troll fighers" are at least as responsible as
> the "trolls" they are trying to fight against. If you just ignore
> them, maybe they won't go away, but they sure as hell will post alot
> less!
>
> Is there any hope for uk.rec.cycling, or is a moderated forum the only
> solution for people like me who want to talk about cycling, with all
> its pains and glories, and not get overwhelmed by childish bickering?
>
> -Myra

I agree that the time is almost right for this group to become
moderated. Unless people take their petty arguments somewhere else, I
can't see a way of getting this group bacl on track.

natox78@googlemail.com wrote:

> I agree that the time is almost right for this group to become
> moderated. Unless people take their petty arguments somewhere else, I
> can't see a way of getting this group bacl on track.

It's an unmoderated usenet group thobut.  You can't just push a button
and make it "moderated"...

Learn to ignore the tosh and/or use a killfile or hand some
cyber-vandals a scalp.

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 2 Oct, 11:52, Peter Clinch  wrote:
> nato...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > I agree that the time is almost right for this group to become
> > moderated. Unless people take their petty arguments somewhere else, I
> > can't see a way of getting this group bacl on track.
>
> It's an unmoderated usenet group thobut.  You can't just push a button
> and make it "moderated"...
>
> Learn to ignore the tosh and/or use a killfile or hand some
> cyber-vandals a scalp.
>
> 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.cli...@dundee.ac.uk    http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Ignoring the tosh is quite hard when it intrudes upon real cycling
conversations. Once upon a time every thread led to an argument about
plastic hats, now it always leads to anti-car driver accusations.

Rather than ignore it, I think I will head for a forum where there is
some protection against this sort of thing. Who knows when a troll
might hit on me!!

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 03:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
Myra in Cambridge  wrote:

> I agree 100%. It's getting pretty bloody bad when the personal attack
> threads outnumber even the watch spam!

I see very little commercial spam, because my NSP filters it.  I see
very little of the trolling because my news client filters it.  Even if
your news client doesn't have advanced filtering capabilities you can
just killfile the protagonists without missing too much, although if
you're stuck with Google Groups there's not a lot you can do apart from
skipping threads that get stupid.
> 
> I also agree that the "troll fighers" are at least as responsible as
> the "trolls" they are trying to fight against. If you just ignore
> them, maybe they won't go away, but they sure as hell will post alot
> less!
> 
> Is there any hope for uk.rec.cycling, or is a moderated forum the only
> solution for people like me who want to talk about cycling, with all
> its pains and glories, and not get overwhelmed by childish bickering?
> 
In its raw state the group has a lot of tedious crap in it ATM, but
filtered it's still relevant and usable - a few contributors have made
"I've had enough, I'm off" type posts, but for the rest of us it really
is business as usual with ride reports, technical queries etc.
Moderated groups are fine for some purposes but just don't work as well
for the sort of discussion that goes on here.

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:49:29 +0100, John Gates  wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:09:18 -0700 (PDT), natox78@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>>I just want to talk about cycling but in the past few weeks it has
>>been more like a children's playground in here! I'moff to other forums
>>where people actually talk about bikes and don't argue and get upset
>>over people they have never met or care about. You lot are so sad. Get
>>a life!
>
>Well said - a number of people here are actually worse than the
>"trolls" they accuse of disrupting this group.

I couldn't agree more.  The number of times that I've genuinely and
honestly tried to kick off a discussion about something, only to
immediately be accused of being a "troll" without any attempts to
reply properly, is astounding.  It really is as though they don't want
to answer my points because they can't and they know (or at least
suspect) that I'm right, so rather than admit that, they take the easy
option and just accuse me of "trolling".

I wouldn't mind so much if I actually was trolling, but hand on heart,
when I start a thread about (say) the 85th Percentile, it's because I
(naively) want to have a debate about it with people who support
cameras.  What's so bad about that?  Why would anyone who was
genuinely interested in road safety (as opposed to just pretending to
be interested for anti-motorist reasons) be so against that?  Why is
all discussion regarding road safety policy so determinedly censored?
Is it any wonder that I suspect foul play (e.g. a hidden agenda
against motorists, or something of that nature)?

I try to initiate discussions about road safety in a cycling group;
others reply with insults and invective.  It happens again and again.
Who's trolling there?

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:45:53 +0100, N.xx B.r 
said in :

>The number of times that I've genuinely and
>honestly tried to kick off a discussion about something, 

...is zero.

And another nym-shift into the trollbox.

Guy
-- 
May contain traces of irony.  Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 03:40:21 -0700 (PDT), natox78@googlemail.com wrote:
>I agree that the time is almost right for this group to become
>moderated. Unless people take their petty arguments somewhere else, I
>can't see a way of getting this group bacl on track.

Just today, I tried (twice) to take the debate between Crapman and me
to email.  Did he even consider it for a moment?  Of course not.  I
want to debate road safety politics; he just wants to show off and
insult people, and he's shit-scared of having a real debate on road
safety, because he knows that the unavoidable conclusion of a fair
debate would be that he is wrong, and has an anti-motorist agenda
dressed up tenuously as road safety.  He's desperately frightened of
the thought of actually having to address all those points that he's
carefully dodged over the last few months.

Clearly the Crapmans of this world are never going to play ball, or
admit what their true agenda is.  So the only hope you have for
getting this group back to discussions about cycling is to eject the
lying motorist-haters who pretend to be interested in cycling and road
safety (Crapman, Spindrift, Peter Clinch, etc), and only keep and have
discussions with those who don't have such hidden agendas.  Why would
I come here to debate speed cameras etc if no-one here was a vocal
supporter of them?  Why would I come here if I didn't think that there
were any lying extremist motorist-haters to wind up?  I find the idea
of posting in a forum full of genuine cycling advocates about as
exciting as the idea of posting in a forum about knitting (no offence
to real cycling advocates, I'm just not interested).

Get the motorist-haters out of here, who only tarnish the reputation
of true cycling advocates anyway, and you'll have what you want.  But
as long as you go along (however grudgingly) with Crapman's pretence
that he's somehow "pro-cycling" or concerned with the safety of
cyclists, as opposed to simply a car-hater who's too much of a coward
to say so, this kind of thing will continue.  There are so many people
all over the Internet who hate Crapman with a passion that it won't
matter if I leave, or if judith leaves, or nully, or anyone
else...they'll *always* be someone to replace us.  They'll *always* be
someone with an axe to grind against Crapman.  The only way to stop it
is to make it clear to Crapman that he's not welcome.

Dismiss this post as "trolling" if you want, but that won't make it
any less true.  Crapman must go.

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:45:53 +0100, N.xx B.r  wrote:
> 
>  I couldn't agree more.  The number of times that I've genuinely and
>  honestly tried to kick off a discussion about something, only to
>  immediately be accused of being a "troll"

The problem is, you've shown yourself over and again to be a troll.  
Also defamatory, crude, extremely unpleasant to be around and 
apparently completely lacking any ability to coexist in any sort of 
social group.

Having proved that beyond all possible doubt no-one is going to 
believe you when you pop up and suddenly announce that actually you've 
just changed your spots and now you're going to play nicely.

Especially when you are simultaneously spewing out forgeries and 
defaming people and apparently doing all you can to disrupt the group.  
You can't have a sensible discussion in one thread while trashing all 
the others.

Do you honestly believe people will believe you want serious 
non-defamatory debate while you carry on as you are doing?

If you want to play nicely, you're just going to do so until people 
notice.  Eventually people will notice that you have started acting 
rationally.  Due to the depths you've sunk to in the past it might 
take a few years, but frankly you've brought that on yourself.  (For 
example, I take people at your level out of my killfile when they've 
been in there a year or so and see if they've improved, so you'll 
almost certainly be able to use your Nuxx Bar nym to talk to me in 
under two years).

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:53:43 +0100
"Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote:

> And another nym-shift into the trollbox.

Do you know, Guy, I'm not *entirely* convinced that policy is working.
You could try not replying to them for a week or two and see if that
gets you anywhere; although to be honest, I suspect I'm wasting my time
suggesting this approach to you.  I and others have suggested it in the
past, and IIRC you agreed that it was sensible.  In any case, you didn't
follow it; perhaps you should have.


(AFAIC, the trolling doesn't bother me overmuch.  I follow u.r.c. on two
computers, one with plenty of filters, one hardly filtered at all.  The
only immediate difference to me is that on one computer I hit the
spacebar a bit more.  I think I'll be able to keep hitting the
spacebar a great deal faster than those twits can post.)


My only regret is the extent to which people have been put off this
newsgroup by the poor s/n ratio at present.  The treatment
for this is pretty obvious: increase the s, *and* reduce the n.  


-- 
Mark, UK

Quoting  Peter Clinch  :
>natox78@googlemail.com wrote:
>>I agree that the time is almost right for this group to become
>>moderated. Unless people take their petty arguments somewhere else, I
>>can't see a way of getting this group bacl on track.
>Learn to ignore the tosh and/or use a killfile or hand some
>cyber-vandals a scalp.

Surely it's obvious that this individual - carefully only whining about
Guy et al not the Nuxxious one, no previous posting history, comes from a
site with throwaway accounts - is another sock puppet?
-- 
David Damerell  flcl?
Today is First Stilday, September - a weekend.

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 02:15:50 -0700 (PDT), 
   	      natox78@googlemail.com  wrote:
> On 2 Oct, 09:49, John Gates  wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 01:09:18 -0700 (PDT), nato...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> >I just want to talk about cycling but in the past few weeks it has
>> >been more like a children's playground in here! I'moff to other forums
>> >where people actually talk about bikes and don't argue and get upset
>> >over people they have never met or care about. You lot are so sad. Get
>> >a life!
>>
>> Well said - a number of people here are actually worse than the
>> "trolls" they accuse of disrupting this group.
>
> So true! Things have got very personal too. Where is the love I say!
> We all ride bikes, lets enjoy and embrace that rather than having

Actually I rather suspect that certain people on this newsgroup
do not ride bikes.

-- 
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_

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 03:26:31 -0700 (PDT)
> Myra in Cambridge  wrote:
> 
>> I agree 100%. It's getting pretty bloody bad when the personal attack
>> threads outnumber even the watch spam!
> 
> I see very little commercial spam, because my NSP filters it.  I see
> very little of the trolling because my news client filters it.  Even if
> your news client doesn't have advanced filtering capabilities you can
> just killfile the protagonists without missing too much, although if
> you're stuck with Google Groups there's not a lot you can do apart from
> skipping threads that get stupid.
>> I also agree that the "troll fighers" are at least as responsible as
>> the "trolls" they are trying to fight against. If you just ignore
>> them, maybe they won't go away, but they sure as hell will post alot
>> less!
>>
>> Is there any hope for uk.rec.cycling, or is a moderated forum the only
>> solution for people like me who want to talk about cycling, with all
>> its pains and glories, and not get overwhelmed by childish bickering?
>>
> In its raw state the group has a lot of tedious crap in it ATM, but
> filtered it's still relevant and usable - a few contributors have made
> "I've had enough, I'm off" type posts, but for the rest of us it really
> is business as usual with ride reports, technical queries etc.
> Moderated groups are fine for some purposes but just don't work as well
> for the sort of discussion that goes on here.
> 
It seems to me that NUXX has got himself into such a frenzy now that 
he'll lose all access through breach of service. Or am I just being 
optimistic? he couldn't go on forever could he?
Maybe the best thing we might be able to do is post more bike stuff, 
even if it just trivia.
Roger Thorpe

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:53:43 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:45:53 +0100, N.xx B.r 
>said in :
>
>>The number of times that I've genuinely and
>>honestly tried to kick off a discussion about something, 
>
>...is zero.
>
>And another nym-shift into the trollbox.
>
>Guy

Excuse me Chapman - have you considered that you may be one of the
causes of the problems currently rife in this group?

Do you think that you fanning the flames is doing any good?



--   
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
Some evidence shows that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit
their 

 heads. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy 
Chapman) - proven to be an outright lie.
He then quickly changed his web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment

On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:52:42 +0100, Peter Clinch
 wrote:

>natox78@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> I agree that the time is almost right for this group to become
>> moderated. Unless people take their petty arguments somewhere else, I
>> can't see a way of getting this group bacl on track.
>
>It's an unmoderated usenet group thobut.  You can't just push a button
>and make it "moderated"...
>
>Learn to ignore the tosh and/or use a killfile or hand some
>cyber-vandals a scalp.

If someone was prepared to volunteer to light touch moderate a group,
I'd support a proposal to uk.net.news.config for a new group
uk.rec.cycling.moderated.

By light touch moderation I mean someone who would be prepared to
allow topical known trolls, such as Troll B, post his Strawman
arguments, and moderate regular posters who reply with flame attacks.

They would also allow off-topic conversations and discussions to
develop from topical posts, so long as they didn't degenerate into a
flame war.