On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 03:33:39 -0700 (PDT), Myra in Cambridge
 wrote:

>No, I won't ask him. It's so out of character that it would be an
>insult to ask him if he did that. Tony awhile back started a thread
>saying that the troll wrestlers are just as responsible as the trolls
>for the sad state the this newsgroup has fallen to. I agree with him.
>Tony doesn't engage in troll wresting, posting under some name made up
>just for one post, nor does he engage in internet skullduggery to try
>to find out who the real people are behind random posts. If you won't
>believe me, then so be it. As I say, I won't insult him nor waste his
>time by asking him if he posted that.
>
>And that is all I will post on this matter.
>
>-Myra

Any comment on the following before you go - it looks like there is an
amazing coincidence here with the real Tony and another couple of
troll feeders using the same IP address.

Perhaps  you could warn him his machine could have been hacked into or
he is using a non-secure wireless network.

Oh - hang on - he could have used the same internet cafe  - and the
same machine - just after the name shifting troll feeder had used it.

On the other hand .......... could there be another explanation?.

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Myra in Cambridge  wrote:
>  judith wrote:
> > Perhaps  you could warn him his machine could have been hacked into or
> > he is using a non-secure wireless network.
> 
>  OK, that's reasonable -- I will warn him.

I wouldn't bother, Myra.

It is unlikely that Tony's machine is compromised, and if it were, it 
is unlikely that the malicious party would have limited themselves to 
one newsgroup posting on this topic.  How likely is it that another 
uk.rec.cycling regular (one conversant with nuxx bar and the mess 
that's been here recently) travelled to Tony's house and skulked in 
the hedge in order to hijack his wireless and make such a posting?

Whether Tony made the posting or not is more or less irrelevant.  
Whether the posting is true or not, whoever posted it managed to do 
so without been vulgar or obscene (unlike judith) and has not posted 
further.

judith's detective work is limited to deciding that every user of a 
particular combination of pipex, giganews and newsreader is Tony 
Raven.  It's hardly conclusive.

Her posting had no content, it was just an infantile, bad-mouthed 
'look-at-me'.  If everyone ignores such things, hopefully she'll give 
up spewing them out.

By responding to her you:
1: give her an excuse to still be here.
2: pander to her persecution complex.

I believe the newsgroup would be better if she was not encouraged.

regards,   Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

[snip uncontentious commentary]

Ian, I completely agree.  I also note that I am getting flamed when
I say similar things, and there are some here who would rather not
even see the meta-debate about the three trolls currently infesting
this group (nully, nuxxy and judith).

Could someone please suggest an uncontentious way of logging
responses where they are demanded (e.g. to alert newcomers to the
problem) and agree on a single nominated account (possibly an
alternate account we can killfile) to undertake this public service.

Some people clearly don't want to see the grosser lies and idiocies
go uncorrected, some don't care either way, just kill the threads
and the trolls, and some people are so irritated by the trolls that
even referring to them causes an allergic reaction.

In the shed we had a loon called Mehran Basti; we had some sport
with him but when he got unpleasant (i.e. started posting
antisemitic rants) we killed him, and he's not been replied to
since.  Not sure if he's posted as he's in the delete section of my
KF.

Let's have a once-and-for-all suggestion that we can all get behind,
and then walk away - at least until some new and more imaginative
trolls come along.  I won't do it, as I don't want to be seen as
part of the problem any more.

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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> 
> In the shed we had a loon called Mehran Basti; we had some sport
> with him but when he got unpleasant (i.e. started posting
> antisemitic rants) we killed him, and he's not been replied to
> since.  

Shit, that's a bit harsh even for you Guy. Was there a whip-round for a 
contract payment or what?

Colin

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> [snip uncontentious commentary]
> 
> Ian, I completely agree.  I also note that I am getting flamed when
> I say similar things, and there are some here who would rather not
> even see the meta-debate about the three trolls currently infesting
> this group (nully, nuxxy and judith).

The meta-debate just encourages the trolling. If you do want a 
meta-debate, it would be best to take it to email.

> Could someone please suggest an uncontentious way of logging
> responses where they are demanded (e.g. to alert newcomers to the
> problem) and agree on a single nominated account (possibly an
> alternate account we can killfile) to undertake this public service.

Any reply encourages them, even automated replies.

> Some people clearly don't want to see the grosser lies and idiocies
> go uncorrected,

And that is why they are posting gross lies and idiocies, to get a reply.
Even discussions like this post and yours will encourage the trolls.

> Let's have a once-and-for-all suggestion that we can all get behind,
> and then walk away - at least until some new and more imaginative
> trolls come along.  I won't do it, as I don't want to be seen as
> part of the problem any more.

The best solution is to kill file the trolls, or totally ignore any 
posts. Do not reply at all even it is a "Do not feed the troll" post, or 
a post pointing out a new nym.

If a new-comer does reply to a troll, then, and only then, reply to that 
new-comer that they are responding to a troll. Do this preferably by email.

On 06 Oct 2008 12:47:16 GMT, Ian Smith  wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Myra in Cambridge  wrote:
>>  judith wrote:
>> > Perhaps  you could warn him his machine could have been hacked into or
>> > he is using a non-secure wireless network.
>> 
>>  OK, that's reasonable -- I will warn him.
>
>I wouldn't bother, Myra.
>
>It is unlikely that Tony's machine is compromised, and if it were, it 
>is unlikely that the malicious party would have limited themselves to 
>one newsgroup posting on this topic.  How likely is it that another 
>uk.rec.cycling regular (one conversant with nuxx bar and the mess 
>that's been here recently) travelled to Tony's house and skulked in 
>the hedge in order to hijack his wireless and make such a posting?
>
>Whether Tony made the posting or not is more or less irrelevant.  
>Whether the posting is true or not, whoever posted it managed to do 
>so without been vulgar or obscene (unlike judith) and has not posted 
>further.




>judith's detective work is limited to deciding that every user of a 
>particular combination of pipex, giganews and newsreader is Tony 
>Raven.  It's hardly conclusive.


Wrong sunshine - it was of course an amazing coincidence that the same
IP address was used.

Any suggestions as to why that should be?


--   
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 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:03:18 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>[snip uncontentious commentary]
>
>Ian, I completely agree.  I also note that I am getting flamed when
>I say similar things, and there are some here who would rather not
>even see the meta-debate about the three trolls currently infesting
>this group (nully, nuxxy and judith).
>
>Could someone please suggest an uncontentious way of logging
>responses where they are demanded (e.g. to alert newcomers to the
>problem) and agree on a single nominated account (possibly an
>alternate account we can killfile) to undertake this public service.


er - how about common sense.

Let people use a kill-file.

Unfortunately you have demonstrated  over the last couple of weeks
that you find it impossible to act sensibly yourself.

What was the reason for keeping the argument with Nuxxy going?

Why did *you* make a cross post to uk.transport where *you* referred
to them as uk.tosspots?

You seem to think that behaviour you criticise in others is acceptable
if carried out by a chosen few.

Well it isn't.

Even Raven has taken to name shifting - something you have told me off
for on the odd occasion I have done it - any comment on his actions?

(Have you found the snide comments yet?)


--   
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

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message 
> , at 
> 06:17:37 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Richard Fairhurst  
> remarked:
>> Then a "whois as9105.com" shows that it's just an alias for Tiscali.
>>
>> The "dynamic" indicates a dynamic IP address, one which could be
>> assigned to any of Tiscali's broadband customers.
>>
>> So you have narrowed it down to one of the 1.9 million people using
>> the same ISP as Tony Raven.
> 
> But they probably won't be changing the customer allocations several 
> times a day.

Is it used for dial up?

-- 

Brian

[snip uncontentious commentary]

Ian, I completely agree.  I also note that I am getting flamed when
I say similar things, and there are some here who would rather not
even see the meta-debate about the three trolls currently infesting
this group (nully, nuxxy and judith).

Could someone please suggest an uncontentious way of logging
responses where they are demanded (e.g. to alert newcomers to the
problem) and agree on a single nominated account (possibly an
alternate account we can killfile) to undertake this public service.

Some people clearly don't want to see the grosser lies and idiocies
go uncorrected, some don't care either way, just kill the threads
and the trolls, and some people are so irritated by the trolls that
even referring to them causes an allergic reaction.

In the shed we had a loon called Mehran Basti; we had some sport
with him but when he got unpleasant (i.e. started posting
antisemitic rants) we killed him, and he's not been replied to
since.  Not sure if he's posted as he's in the delete section of my
KF.

Let's have a once-and-for-all suggestion that we can all get behind,
and then walk away - at least until some new and more imaginative
trolls come along.  I won't do it, as I don't want to be seen as
part of the problem any more.

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

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <gcd6kp$p89$1@news.datemas.de>, at 15:16:56 on Mon, 6 Oct 
> 2008, Brian Morrison  remarked:
>>>> Then a "whois as9105.com" shows that it's just an alias for Tiscali.
>>>>
>>>> The "dynamic" indicates a dynamic IP address, one which could be
>>>> assigned to any of Tiscali's broadband customers.
>>>>
>>>> So you have narrowed it down to one of the 1.9 million people using
>>>> the same ISP as Tony Raven.
>>> But they probably won't be changing the customer allocations several
>>> times a day.
>> Is it used for dial up?
> 
> Someone mentioned broadband (and the "abuse to dsl@pipex.net" in the 
> headers is a clue).  [Pipex is now part of Tiscali]
> 
> Also, if you look at the address in question, on subsequent days, you 
> should get some idea if the IP address is changing every session.
> 
> I can see that address recently being used by the same person for over a 
> week (in cam.transport) in this case. [Plus one message posted from 
> Southampton Uni and one via Vodafone]. And no suspicious messages in 
> cam.transport, btw.

Odd, but forgive me if I can't be bothered to look at it any further, I
just don't have the enthusiasm.

I've never seen Tony post anything like this in cam.* before, so I
assume it's someone out to foment trouble.

-- 

Brian

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008, Brian Morrison  wrote:
>  Roland Perry wrote:
> > In message 
> > , at 
> > 06:17:37 on Mon, 6 Oct 2008, Richard Fairhurst  
> > remarked:
> >> Then a "whois as9105.com" shows that it's just an alias for Tiscali.
> >>
> >> The "dynamic" indicates a dynamic IP address, one which could be
> >> assigned to any of Tiscali's broadband customers.
> >>
> >> So you have narrowed it down to one of the 1.9 million people using
> >> the same ISP as Tony Raven.
> > 
> > But they probably won't be changing the customer allocations several 
> > times a day.
> 
>  Is it used for dial up?

I spot-checked several postings apparently from Tony Raven.  Of the 
few I checked, none had the same IP address as the posting in 
question.  Interestingly, none had the same IP address as any other 
either, suggesting that whatever system Tony does use it really does 
get a dynamic IP address, rather than a pseudo-dynamic but actually 
rarely changing one that many ADSL customers end up with.

regards,  Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 06:17:37 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst
 wrote:

>On Oct 6, 12:44 pm, judith  wrote:
>>
>> Any comment on the following before you go - it looks like there is an
>> amazing coincidence here with the real Tony and another couple of
>> troll feeders using the same IP address.
>>
>> Perhaps  you could warn him his machine could have been hacked into or
>> he is using a non-secure wireless network.
>>
>> Oh - hang on - he could have used the same internet cafe  - and the
>> same machine - just after the name shifting troll feeder had used it.
>>
>> On the other hand .......... could there be another explanation?.  
>
>Er, yes.
>
>According to http://remote.12dt.com/:
>
>80.42.211.78 resolves to
>"80-42-211-78.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com"
>Top Level Domain: "as9105.com"
>
>Then a "whois as9105.com" shows that it's just an alias for Tiscali.
>
>The "dynamic" indicates a dynamic IP address, one which could be
>assigned to any of Tiscali's broadband customers.
>
>So you have narrowed it down to one of the 1.9 million people using
>the same ISP as Tony Raven.
>
>Richard




On the other hand  I have just over 60,000 postings on my server from
uk.rec.cycling and cam.transport combined.

In those 60,000 postings the IP address 80.42.211.78 has only  been
used 10 times.

Seven of those times it had been "allocated" to Tony Raven.

Two of those times it was "allocated" to Wile E Coyote.

On one occasion it was "allocated to" : That wasn't Tom Crispin

Even  more amazing it was "allocated" to Raven within 40 minutes of
one of the others.

Now I wonder whose analysis and conclusion is correct.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:39:57 +0100, Brian Morrison
 wrote:

<snip>

>Odd, but forgive me if I can't be bothered to look at it any further, I
>just don't have the enthusiasm.
>
>I've never seen Tony post anything like this in cam.* before, so I
>assume it's someone out to foment trouble.


And I assume - based on very strong circumstantial evidence -  that
you are plain wrong.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> [snip uncontentious commentary]
> 
> Ian, I completely agree.  I also note that I am getting flamed when
> I say similar things, and there are some here who would rather not
> even see the meta-debate about the three trolls currently infesting
> this group (nully, nuxxy and judith).
> 
The very fact that you label those two posters and myself as trolls, 
demonstrates that in the minds of people who _aren't_ the rabid 
psychotic car-haters such as yourself, we are in fact the opposite. The 
'troll' here is _you_, and on top of that you're a retard too. HTH.

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 14:22:54 +0100, Martin 
wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> [snip uncontentious commentary]
>> 
>> Ian, I completely agree.  I also note that I am getting flamed when
>> I say similar things, and there are some here who would rather not
>> even see the meta-debate about the three trolls currently infesting
>> this group (nully, nuxxy and judith).
>
>The meta-debate just encourages the trolling. If you do want a 
>meta-debate, it would be best to take it to email.


Hello - it's Dr Martin Dann.

Do you really have a PhD - or was it a slip when you left it in your
sig on that just one occasion.  Was that the same day you put it in
your e-petition in order to impress and forgot to remove it?



--   
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 06 Oct 2008 12:57:47 GMT, Richard Thrippleton 
wrote:

<snip>

>(somebody really ought to count how many hundreds of posts she's made accusing
>Mr. Chapman of something inane relating to some argument about bicycle helmets.
>It's clearly very important to her.)
>
>Richard


My sigs purely point out that Chapman is a despicable liar.

The day he truly apologises to me and provides the confirmation of the
things he says I have said/done - will be the day I stop drawing
attention to his many deficiencies



--   
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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Ian, I completely agree.  I also note that I am getting flamed when
> I say similar things,

That might be because, of late, you decry the troll attack, claim you've 
kill filed them, but are often a willing, verbose participant in troll 
baiting threads, often by replying to posts made by those still reading 
the trolls, all the time baiting them in return, inbetween raised hands 
'what me, guv?' theatricals... not unlike you are with this 'look at me, 
lets start a FAQ' idea...

> Could someone please suggest an uncontentious way of logging
> responses where they are demanded (e.g. to alert newcomers to the
> problem) and agree on a single nominated account (possibly an
> alternate account we can killfile) to undertake this public service.

Why on earth would you want to legitimize the actions of a minority of 
misanthropic arseholes by dedicating a FAQ to dealing with them? This is 
about the daftest idea I've come across since AFU did a similar thing, 
leading to the almost immediate death of one of the founding groups on 
Usenet - possibly the only group ever destroyed by a series of emoticons.

> Some people clearly don't want to see the grosser lies and idiocies
> go uncorrected, some don't care either way, just kill the threads
> and the trolls, and some people are so irritated by the trolls that
> even referring to them causes an allergic reaction.

Harrumph. There's a better way.

Just suppose that those threads were started by people who didn't care 
what the response was, just that they caused argument. Also suppose that 
they are immediately drowned out by the quasi-religious fervour of the 
likes of yourself (and others) arguing the toss, quoting reports, stats, 
mudslinging ad infinitum.

The end result of such noise it that nobody, not even newbies and 
novices, have their positions altered. Newbies just ignore the noise and 
piss off to somewhere like cycling plus where there's plenty of talk 
about saddles, chain lube, rides, hubs and Chris Hoy's nutrition, and 
very little boring ranting. The trolls don't change, because that's what 
they're here for, and the troll wrestler missionaries just become 
increasingly self-righteous.

The sad fact is that most of the people whom you seek to protect from 
the nasty, predatory views of the trolls already are aware of them (or 
those like them) and are intelligent enough to make their own minds up 
based on a whole range of experience; we've all heard them in the pub 
and know that they're bollocks - interestingly, not through logical 
reasoning as such but mainly because such views are expounded by the 
most atrocious kind of bar-room blowhard bore. Five minutes on any bike 
ride proves the bores are wrong...

The best way to counter the trolls is to ignore them, and the best way 
to induct and guide the newbies is to discuss the real stuff about our 
love of cycling; Sheldon, Yehuda Moon, all that stuff, and most of all, 
to be seen to be enjoying being on a bike... that does more than ranting 
ever could.

> Let's have a once-and-for-all suggestion that we can all get behind,
> and then walk away - at least until some new and more imaginative
> trolls come along. 

Just walk away, Guy, fight ye not monsters lest ye become one. Your 
sense of righteousness is now so inflamed you can't see the flaws in 
your own reasoning.

> I won't do it, as I don't want to be seen as
> part of the problem any more.

  news:btnke4htkgqlo9n3e6kbqg6spg1akhhli9@4ax.com

shows you can't keep your word, and it already reads like the gospel
according to Guy.

Just leave it for a while and let the dust die down. Please.

Tim
-- 
My hearts numbered beat            |       Greetings from Birmingham, UK
Still echoes in this empty room    |All about me: www.nervouscyclist.org
Fear wells in me, but nothing seems|      Is your ISP pimping your data?
Enough to defend      Dave Matthews|                  www.badphorm.co.uk

judith wrote:

> 
> My sigs purely point out that Chapman is a despicable liar.
> 
> The day he truly apologises to me and provides the confirmation of the
> things he says I have said/done - will be the day I stop drawing
> attention to his many deficiencies
I think you've lost the plot in a big way. Regardless of whether you're 
right or wrong with your accusation, you're still acting like a bit of a 
numpty, in my opinion. Is it *really* that important to you? Do you 
honestly expect anything productive to come of this? People seeing your 
posts aren't going to come away thinking "Gosh, that Mr.Chapman is a bad 
lad!", they're going to think "That judith is unhealthily obsessive, I 
don't think I should take them seriously". Why is my sense of 
perspective so disjoint from yours in this case?

You'll note that I'm having a difference of opinion with Guy in another 
current thread. If (hypothetically) he annoys me in some way, or I think 
he's behaving badly, I'll probably say so, maybe flame a bit to blow off 
some steam, then leave the thread. I won't carry on harassing him to my 
dying day, perpetuating grudges onto many other members of the group, 
and wasting hours of my life to harass him on usenet and spam the rest 
of the group as collateral damage. I apply this kind of behaviour 
globally. I'm fairly sure that of the two of us, I lead a happier life, 
online and offline. Seriously, think about it.

Regards,
Richard

On Mon, 06 Oct, Tim Dunne  wrote:
>  Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> 
> > Let's have a once-and-for-all suggestion that we can all get 
> > behind, and then walk away - at least until some new and more 
> > imaginative trolls come along.
> 
>  Just walk away, Guy, fight ye not monsters lest ye become one. Your 
>  sense of righteousness is now so inflamed you can't see the flaws 
>  in your own reasoning.

Agreed.  Guy is now at least as damaging as judith.

Killfile him.  Perhaps he'll go away quicker than she will, but it 
doesn't matter which goes first - losing either loses the argument, 
and that this stage losing either is better than retaining the 
argument.

> > I won't do it, as I don't want to be seen as part of the problem 
> > any more.
> 
>  shows you can't keep your word, and it already reads like the 
>  gospel according to Guy.

Indeed - "I shan't do it, because it might be perceived wrongly" 
followed by, apparently scant minutes later "look look everybody - 
I've found a new way to goad the trolls, aren't I clever" (and within 
two posts it was a helmet debate with the perpetual "its not anti 
helmet it's pro choice" argument, looking behaviourally 
indistinguishable from any anti-speed-camera loon).

Killfile all the ranters: judith, guy and nuxx bar. 

None of them are any more willing to see sense than the others and I'm 
sick of seeing any one of them (sad though it is to have to admit it).

regards,   Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

On 06 Oct 2008 21:13:13 GMT, Ian Smith  wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Oct, Tim Dunne  wrote:
>>  Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> 
>> > Let's have a once-and-for-all suggestion that we can all get 
>> > behind, and then walk away - at least until some new and more 
>> > imaginative trolls come along.
>> 
>>  Just walk away, Guy, fight ye not monsters lest ye become one. Your 
>>  sense of righteousness is now so inflamed you can't see the flaws 
>>  in your own reasoning.
>
>Agreed.  Guy is now at least as damaging as judith.
>
>Killfile him.  Perhaps he'll go away quicker than she will, 

was that a "than" or a "then"?

You  don't now how near you are.



--   
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 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:19:07 GMT, Tim Dunne
 said in
<%ouGk.67882$E41.3026@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>shows you can't keep your word, and it already reads like the gospel
>according to Guy.

Of course it does, I wrote it.  If someone else wrote it it might
sound more like someone else.  You'll note that some people have
made good, constructive suggestions, as a result of which the page
has changed.

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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Of course it does, I wrote it.  If someone else wrote it it might
> sound more like someone else.  You'll note that some people have
> made good, constructive suggestions, as a result of which the page
> has changed.

Any comment at all on the other stuff I said, or are you Zaphod 
Beeblebrox patent Anti-Crit glasses still functioning?

Tim


-- 
My hearts numbered beat            |       Greetings from Birmingham, UK
Still echoes in this empty room    |All about me: www.nervouscyclist.org
Fear wells in me, but nothing seems|      Is your ISP pimping your data?
Enough to defend      Dave Matthews|                  www.badphorm.co.uk

On 06 Oct 2008 21:13:13 GMT, Ian Smith  said
in :

>Agreed.  Guy is now at least as damaging as judith.

Thank you so much.  I am at least /trying/ to be constructive here.
I don't recall harassing anyone by posting their personal data or
attack pages written by frustrated spammers either.

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 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:36:32 GMT, Tim Dunne
 said in
<AxvGk.67943$E41.10955@text.news.virginmedia.com>:

>Any comment at all on the other stuff I said, or are you Zaphod 
>Beeblebrox patent Anti-Crit glasses still functioning?

I am not sure I am getting you, old fruity.  Perhaps you'd be so
kind as to email me.

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

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> I am not sure I am getting you, old fruity.  Perhaps you'd be so
> kind as to email me.

Like I say, never mind. You're obviously beyond seeing anything except 
the trolls.

Tim
-- 
My hearts numbered beat            |       Greetings from Birmingham, UK
Still echoes in this empty room    |All about me: www.nervouscyclist.org
Fear wells in me, but nothing seems|      Is your ISP pimping your data?
Enough to defend      Dave Matthews|                  www.badphorm.co.uk

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:39:08 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
 wrote:

>On 06 Oct 2008 21:13:13 GMT, Ian Smith  said
>in :
>
>>Agreed.  Guy is now at least as damaging as judith.
>
>Thank you so much.  I am at least /trying/ to be constructive here.
>I don't recall harassing anyone by posting their personal data or
>attack pages written by frustrated spammers either.
>
>Guy

You really need to watch it sunshine.
Lets be clear : are you accusing me of posting personal data?


--   
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

In article , Ian Smith wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Oct, Tim Dunne  wrote:
>>  Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> 
>> > Let's have a once-and-for-all suggestion that we can all get 
>> > behind, and then walk away - at least until some new and more 
>> > imaginative trolls come along.
>> 
>>  Just walk away, Guy, fight ye not monsters lest ye become one. Your 
>>  sense of righteousness is now so inflamed you can't see the flaws 
>>  in your own reasoning.
>
>Agreed.  Guy is now at least as damaging as judith.

That's excessive. I see more damaging posts from Guy than judith, but 
that's because I haven't killfiled him. Yet. judith is easier to ignore,
and I wish Guy would ignore them more, but that doesn't make him equally
bad.

On 07 Oct 2008, Alan Braggins  wrote:
>  In article , Ian Smith wrote:
> >On Mon, 06 Oct, Tim Dunne  wrote:
> >>  Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Let's have a once-and-for-all suggestion that we can all get 
> >> > behind, and then walk away - at least until some new and more 
> >> > imaginative trolls come along.
> >> 
> >>  Just walk away, Guy, fight ye not monsters lest ye become one. Your 
> >>  sense of righteousness is now so inflamed you can't see the flaws 
> >>  in your own reasoning.
> >
> >Agreed.  Guy is now at least as damaging as judith.
> 
>  That's excessive.

I don't think so.  He's shouting as loud and as irrationally.  It's 
reached the point where I don't care who started it.  As such, I just 
want it to stop.

Guy is as singularly unable to drop anything as judith - she's banging 
on about some injustice he did to her who-knows-when, and he's banging 
on about the trolls must be put right.  They _are_ each as damaging as 
the other.

>  but that doesn't make him equally bad.

Actually, I avoided saying he was equally bad - Guy may be able to add 
something useful to the group (if only he'd stop being such an 
infantile prat determined to wreck everything just so he can 'win' 
some game no-one but he and judith is playing), while I don't think 
judith is capable of it.  

However, they _are_ as damaging to the group as each other.

regards,   Ian SMith
-- 
  |\ /|      no .sig
  |o o|
  |/ \|

On 07 Oct 2008 07:02:55 GMT, Ian Smith  wrote:

<snip>


>Actually, I avoided saying he was equally bad - Guy may be able to add 
>something useful to the group (if only he'd stop being such an 
>infantile prat determined to wreck everything just so he can 'win' 
>some game no-one but he and judith is playing), while I don't think 
>judith is capable of it.  

You are right of course.  Anyone who contributes those stats we would
rather not hear cannot be making a worthwhile contribution:
(What I do like is the fact that the psycho-lists let them pass with
no comment so that the newcomers can see for themselves with no nasty
bias just how dangerous being a cyclist can be)

Latest DfT figures comparing cyclist and pedestrian Killed or
Seriously Injured

Numbers and rates per Rate per 100 million 				

Pedal cycle 
Passenger Kilometers:		53
Passenger Journeys:		200
Passenger  Hours:			640

Pedestrians		
Passenger Kilometers:		37
Passenger Journeys:		38
Passenger Hours:			160

So much for cycling being as safe as being a pedestrian - doesn't
matter how you cut the figures, it doesn't really seem to be true does
it?

Cycling kilometers 43%  greater casualties than pedestrian
Cycling Journeys 5 times casualties of pedestrians
Cycling Hours: 4 times casualties of pedestrians

--   
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

judith wrote:
> On 07 Oct 2008 07:02:55 GMT, Ian Smith  wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
>> Actually, I avoided saying he was equally bad - Guy may be able to add 
>> something useful to the group (if only he'd stop being such an 
>> infantile prat determined to wreck everything just so he can 'win' 
>> some game no-one but he and judith is playing), while I don't think 
>> judith is capable of it.  
> 
> You are right of course.  Anyone who contributes those stats we would
> rather not hear cannot be making a worthwhile contribution:
> (What I do like is the fact that the psycho-lists let them pass with
> no comment so that the newcomers can see for themselves with no nasty
> bias just how dangerous being a cyclist can be)
> 
> Latest DfT figures comparing cyclist and pedestrian Killed or
> Seriously Injured
> 
> Numbers and rates per Rate per 100 million 				
> 
> Pedal cycle 
> Passenger Kilometers:		53
> Passenger Journeys:		200
> Passenger  Hours:			640
> 
> Pedestrians		
> Passenger Kilometers:		37
> Passenger Journeys:		38
> Passenger Hours:			160
> 
> So much for cycling being as safe as being a pedestrian - doesn't
> matter how you cut the figures, it doesn't really seem to be true does
> it?
> 
> Cycling kilometers 43%  greater casualties than pedestrian
> Cycling Journeys 5 times casualties of pedestrians
> Cycling Hours: 4 times casualties of pedestrians
> 
> --   
> 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
> 
> 

Judith, why don't you keep your rambling on uk.rec.cycling, where at 
least it is relevant, instead of cross posting to other groups?

Brian.

Richard Thrippleton wrote:

> I'm not sure if this has been posted yet ...
> http://xkcd.com/386/ ... 

Once or twice.  :-)

-- 
Dave...

Phil W Lee wrote:
> Brian Robertson <me@[nospam].com> considered Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:59:37
> +0100 the perfect time to write:
> 
>> Judith, why don't you keep your rambling on uk.rec.cycling, where at 
>> least it is relevant, instead of cross posting to other groups?
>>
> Because she's trolling - it's what trolls do.

So basically you want to come to uk.transport and troll, but dont want 
the trolling in 'your' newsgroup? Hmmm, that doesn't sound equitable at 
all - I think we need to put URC back in again.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 22:10:28 +0100, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth)
wrote:

>judith  wrote:
>
>> A simple question 
>
>The simple question is why did you cross post this crap to uk.transport
>when the person you were responding to had the decency to confine their
>comment to the sewer?
>
>Oh hang on, it's because you're a brainless, trolling numpty, isn't it?


I thought I'd brighten up your sad dull life - sorry for doing so.


--   
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 Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:59:37 +0100, Brian Robertson wrote:

> 
> Judith, why don't you keep your rambling on uk.rec.cycling, where at 
> least it is relevant, instead of cross posting to other groups?

That's the troll technique.

Nobody in uk.rec.cycling replies to "judith", so "she" is adding groups to
the newsgroups header, trying to get other posters to unwittingly post
replies there.

Please don't.

"_"  wrote in message 
news:zpwkgmi84rf7$.xovdbogc9ywr.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:59:37 +0100, Brian Robertson wrote:
>
>>
>> Judith, why don't you keep your rambling on uk.rec.cycling, where at
>> least it is relevant, instead of cross posting to other groups?
>
> That's the troll technique.
>
> Nobody in uk.rec.cycling replies to "judith", so "she" is adding groups to
> the newsgroups header, trying to get other posters to unwittingly post
> replies there.
>
> Please don't.

Hmm, I can think of someone else that could equally well apply to.

Brian Robertson <me@[nospam].com> considered Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:59:37
+0100 the perfect time to write:

>
>Judith, why don't you keep your rambling on uk.rec.cycling, where at 
>least it is relevant, instead of cross posting to other groups?
>
Because she's trolling - it's what trolls do.

"Doug"  wrote in message 
news:fe1a6969-50a9-4923-9ec4-572e90fefd7e@u27g2000pro.googlegroups.com...

"Human-powered transport is the transport of person(s) and/or goods
using human muscle power. Like animal-powered transport, human-powered
transport has existed since time immemorial in the form of walking,
running and swimming."

--

Well, that paragraph was a complete waste of bandwidth, containing no useful 
information for the purposes of this thread.

Oh, wait a minute, that applies to everything Doug posts.

Doug wrote:

> On 8 Oct, 19:31, "Graculus" 
> wrote:
>> "Doug"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:fe1a6969-50a9-4923-9ec4-572e90fefd7e@u27g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> "Human-powered transport is the transport of person(s) and/or goods
>> using human muscle power. Like animal-powered transport, human-powered
>> transport has existed since time immemorial in the form of walking,
>> running and swimming."
>>
>> --
>>
>> Well, that paragraph was a complete waste of bandwidth, containing no
>> useful information for the purposes of this thread.
>>
>> Oh, wait a minute, that applies to everything Doug posts.
>>
> So your gratuitous comment on someone else's post, instead of you
> actually addressing the issue,  is not a waste of bandwidth?
> 
When have you ever addressed an issue? 
That's 'issue' as in more than one side to an argument BTW.