This group has lost its way.

[Trevor A Panther[_2_]]

I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.

So I just logged on and had a look at what was happening. I was not surprised

It confirmed my ( undisclosed) opinion of this, once, very good cycling NG.

So my display shows a total of 117 posts downloaded --and of that number 47
are on the the topic "On my head be it .........."

and that is with most the avid trolls and troll feeders in my killfile.

What a pitiful state of affairs.

It is sad to say but it is the posters who wrangle on and on to those who
have absolutely no interest in cycling who actually have brought the NG down
to its present sad state.

I am nothing if not outspoken, as many of you will know, many of you are
totally potty. it is a great pity that cycling, touring , cycling gear,
cycling problems, cycling oddities -- they have been submerged by all this
trash that is posted.

I am also going to be even more annoying -- since I shall not respond to any
posts on this topic of "UM"



--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:14:46 GMT, "Trevor A Panther"
> said in
>:

>It is sad to say but it is the posters who wrangle on and on to those who
>have absolutely no interest in cycling who actually have brought the NG down
>to its present sad state.

And rather than do something to fix it, like talking about cycling,
you post another diatribe. I'm sure that will work a treat :-)

Wait till the summer when the tour starts. We are so boring about
that, I expect even judith will go away.

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
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>

[Rob Morley]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:14:46 GMT
"Trevor A Panther" > wrote:

> I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.

People don't 'subscribe' to Usenet groups, they either read them or they
don't.
>
> So I just logged on and had a look at what was happening. I was not
> surprised
>
> It confirmed my ( undisclosed) opinion of this, once, very good
> cycling NG.
>
> So my display shows a total of 117 posts downloaded --and of that
> number 47 are on the the topic "On my head be it .........."
>
> and that is with most the avid trolls and troll feeders in my
> killfile.
>
> What a pitiful state of affairs.

That you can't get your newsreader to filter the dross?
>
> It is sad to say but it is the posters who wrangle on and on to
> those who have absolutely no interest in cycling who actually have
> brought the NG down to its present sad state.

Probably true. But what does hand-wringing do to help the cause?
>
> I am nothing if not outspoken, as many of you will know, many of you
> are totally potty. it is a great pity that cycling, touring ,
> cycling gear, cycling problems, cycling oddities -- they have been
> submerged by all this trash that is posted.
>
> I am also going to be even more annoying -- since I shall not respond
> to any posts on this topic of "UM"
>
Ultra-narrow mudguards?

[Tosspot[_2_]]

Trevor A Panther wrote:
> I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.
>
> So I just logged on and had a look at what was happening. I was not
> surprised
>
> It confirmed my ( undisclosed) opinion of this, once, very good cycling NG.
>
> So my display shows a total of 117 posts downloaded --and of that
> number 47 are on the the topic "On my head be it .........."
>
> and that is with most the avid trolls and troll feeders in my killfile.
>
> What a pitiful state of affairs.
>
> It is sad to say but it is the posters who wrangle on and on to those
> who have absolutely no interest in cycling who actually have brought the
> NG down to its present sad state.
>
> I am nothing if not outspoken, as many of you will know, many of you
> are totally potty. it is a great pity that cycling, touring , cycling
> gear, cycling problems, cycling oddities -- they have been submerged by
> all this trash that is posted.
>
> I am also going to be even more annoying -- since I shall not respond to
> any posts on this topic of "UM"

I say my dear fellow, that's a bit on the strong side. Pop old Moody
Judy and her ****buddies in the jolly old crapper bin and jobs a
goodun. A complete lack of moral fibre in the youngsters of today,
it's disgraceful. they expect the world on a plate.

[Danny Colyer]

On 21/02/2009 18:01, Rob Morley wrote:
> People don't 'subscribe' to Usenet groups,

I do.

<checks usenet settings>

"Manage newsgroup subscriptions"

Yup, I believe that's the usual terminology.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

[Rob Morley]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:14:58 +0000
Danny Colyer > wrote:

> On 21/02/2009 18:01, Rob Morley wrote:
> > People don't 'subscribe' to Usenet groups,
>
> I do.
>
> <checks usenet settings>
>
> "Manage newsgroup subscriptions"
>
> Yup, I believe that's the usual terminology.
>
Mine says "Subscribe to newsgroup ..." but that's not my point - those
are just client-side settings and it's perfectly possible to read
Usenet without a client that has those settings. With Usenet the
content is just sitting there waiting for you to download it like a
web page - it's not the same as subscribing to e.g. a newsletter, where
it's necessary to have a list of subscribers in order to operate and
withdrawal from membership has a tangible effect.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Trevor A Panther wrote:

> I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.

> What a pitiful state of affairs.

It's pitiful when all you can do is wring your hand, pontificate and
**** off rather than doing something constructive about it.

Why not just post about bikes and cycling?

It's the people that **** off that destroy a group and make it lose
it's way AND THAT'S YOU, that is.

So **** off, and stop moaning or looking for attention and
commisserations, or do summat about it and post about bikes and cycling.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[judith smith]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:29:37 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:14:46 GMT, "Trevor A Panther"
> said in
>:
>
>>It is sad to say but it is the posters who wrangle on and on to those who
>>have absolutely no interest in cycling who actually have brought the NG down
>>to its present sad state.
>
>And rather than do something to fix it, like talking about cycling,
>you post another diatribe. I'm sure that will work a treat :-)
>
>Wait till the summer when the tour starts. We are so boring about
>that, I expect even judith will go away.


Good old Guy - keep things on the boil.

In your dreams sunshine.


--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

[burtthebike]

"Trevor A Panther" > wrote in message
om...
>I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.
>
So just stay unsubscribed then, and stop coming back to find out how bad it
is!

Just remembered this is the same Trevor A Panther who resigned from the CTC
because he found he was a member of the local CTC group. This membership
had no effect on him, his behaviour or on anything to with him at all, and
this non-effect was so profound that Trevor just had to resign.

[Andrew Price]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:14:46 GMT, "Trevor A Panther"
> wrote:

[---]

>So my display shows a total of 117 posts downloaded --and of that number 47
>are on the the topic "On my head be it .........."

Well, it should be obvious what that thread was all about, even
without reading a single post.

Kille-file the thread.

>and that is with most the avid trolls and troll feeders in my killfile.

Seems like you have a slight configuration problem here. If your
kill-file was working properly, you shouldn't even see their
"contributions".

[Jeff[_6_]]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:14:46 GMT
> "Trevor A Panther" > wrote:
>
>> I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.
>
> People don't 'subscribe' to Usenet groups, they either read them or they
> don't.

Depends on your viewpoint. The tool I use to read Usenet news groups
talks about "subscribing" to them. I've seen other tools that do not
use that terminology.

Regardless, I'll miss Trevor's posts. He clearly loves cycling. We
need more posts about cycling and fewer posts pushing personal agendas.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <20090221185546.35580c9a@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
>Mine says "Subscribe to newsgroup ..." but that's not my point - those
>are just client-side settings and it's perfectly possible to read
>Usenet without a client that has those settings. With Usenet the
>content is just sitting there waiting for you to download it like a
>web page - it's not the same as subscribing to e.g. a newsletter, where
>it's necessary to have a list of subscribers in order to operate and
>withdrawal from membership has a tangible effect.

Because that content will still magically just write itself if people
give up on the group?

[Roger Thorpe]

Paul - xxx wrote:
> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>
>> I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.
>
>> What a pitiful state of affairs.
>
> It's pitiful when all you can do is wring your hand, pontificate and
> **** off rather than doing something constructive about it.
>
> Why not just post about bikes and cycling?
>
> It's the people that **** off that destroy a group and make it lose
> it's way AND THAT'S YOU, that is.
>
> So **** off, and stop moaning or looking for attention and
> commisserations, or do summat about it and post about bikes and cycling.
>
I think that if you look around then you'll find that Trevor has
contributed plenty of interesting stuff in this newsgroup. The trouble
is that if you don't want to get into the trollfest, speculate about
accidents with inadequate information or just make something up there's
not a lot left.
There are still some good folk here now, but there were many more last year.
Roger Thorpe

[judith smith]

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:15:18 +0000, Roger Thorpe
> wrote:

>Paul - xxx wrote:
>> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>>
>>> I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.
>>
>>> What a pitiful state of affairs.
>>
>> It's pitiful when all you can do is wring your hand, pontificate and
>> **** off rather than doing something constructive about it.
>>
>> Why not just post about bikes and cycling?
>>
>> It's the people that **** off that destroy a group and make it lose
>> it's way AND THAT'S YOU, that is.
>>
>> So **** off, and stop moaning or looking for attention and
>> commisserations, or do summat about it and post about bikes and cycling.
>>
>I think that if you look around then you'll find that Trevor has
>contributed plenty of interesting stuff in this newsgroup. The trouble
>is that if you don't want to get into the trollfest, speculate about
>accidents with inadequate information or just make something up there's
>not a lot left.
>There are still some good folk here now, but there were many more last year.
>Roger Thorpe


Si

[Rob Morley]

On 21 Feb 2009 22:44:49 +0000 (GMT)
(Alan Braggins) wrote:

> In article <20090221185546.35580c9a@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
> >Mine says "Subscribe to newsgroup ..." but that's not my point -
> >those are just client-side settings and it's perfectly possible to
> >read Usenet without a client that has those settings. With Usenet
> >the content is just sitting there waiting for you to download it
> >like a web page - it's not the same as subscribing to e.g. a
> >newsletter, where it's necessary to have a list of subscribers in
> >order to operate and withdrawal from membership has a tangible
> >effect.
>
> Because that content will still magically just write itself if people
> give up on the group?

People who don't like a group should change it or go away quietly.
Whinging doesn't promote a positive attitude and whingers always seem
to want someone else to fix it for them.

[Paul - xxx[_2_]]

Roger Thorpe wrote:

> Paul - xxx wrote:
> > Trevor A Panther wrote:
> >
> > > I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.
> >
> > > What a pitiful state of affairs.
> >
> > It's pitiful when all you can do is wring your hand, pontificate and
> > **** off rather than doing something constructive about it.
> >
> > Why not just post about bikes and cycling?
> >
> > It's the people that **** off that destroy a group and make it lose
> > it's way AND THAT'S YOU, that is.
> >
> > So **** off, and stop moaning or looking for attention and
> > commisserations, or do summat about it and post about bikes and
> > cycling.
> >
> I think that if you look around then you'll find that Trevor has
> contributed plenty of interesting stuff in this newsgroup. The
> trouble is that if you don't want to get into the trollfest,
> speculate about accidents with inadequate information or just make
> something up there's not a lot left. There are still some good folk
> here now, but there were many more last year.

That's _exactly_ my point ... why leave when all that needs doing is to
ignore what you dn't want to read and post about what you do?

It's the good posters leaving which destroys a group, not the incoming
waves of ****e.
I know it's hard to ignore, I know a lot gets lost in the noise, but
walking away never solves any problem.


--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On 21 Feb 2009 22:44:49 +0000 (GMT)
> (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>
>> In article <20090221185546.35580c9a@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
>>> Mine says "Subscribe to newsgroup ..." but that's not my point -
>>> those are just client-side settings and it's perfectly possible to
>>> read Usenet without a client that has those settings. With Usenet
>>> the content is just sitting there waiting for you to download it
>>> like a web page - it's not the same as subscribing to e.g. a
>>> newsletter, where it's necessary to have a list of subscribers in
>>> order to operate and withdrawal from membership has a tangible
>>> effect.
>>
>> Because that content will still magically just write itself if people
>> give up on the group?
>
> People who don't like a group should change it or go away quietly.
> Whinging doesn't promote a positive attitude and whingers always seem
> to want someone else to fix it for them.

A group is made up of the contributions of the individuals within the group.
Any one individual has no influence/is not responsible for the contributions
from any other individual within the group. Thus how does an individual
change a group?

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:28:25 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
said in >:

>A group is made up of the contributions of the individuals within the group.
>Any one individual has no influence/is not responsible for the contributions
>from any other individual within the group. Thus how does an individual
>change a group?

A particularly toxic or noxious individual whose main aim is
destruction of a group can do a lot of damage by provoking
in-fighting, but yes, it is hard for any one individual to
single-handedly determine the direction of a group.

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
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>

[judith smith]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:36:32 +0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:28:25 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
>said in >:
>
>>A group is made up of the contributions of the individuals within the group.
>>Any one individual has no influence/is not responsible for the contributions
>>from any other individual within the group. Thus how does an individual
>>change a group?
>
>A particularly toxic or noxious individual whose main aim is
>destruction of a group can do a lot of damage by provoking
>in-fighting, but yes, it is hard for any one individual to
>single-handedly determine the direction of a group.
>
>Guy


"toxic" - "noxious" "provoking in-fighting"? - good old Guy keep
things on the boil.


You do have rather a vivid imagination - or are you trying to justify
your own actions.

I think if someone accuses another of doing/saying certain things then
the "other" is more than at liberty to seek clarification/
justification - particularly when what has been said is untruthful.

--
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy
Chapman)
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage
my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
I pointed out the web page
He then quickly changed the web page - but "forgot" to change the date
of last amendment so it looked like the change had been there for
years.

[judith smith]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:28:25 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
wrote:

<snip>

>
>A group is made up of the contributions of the individuals within the group.
>Any one individual has no influence/is not responsible for the contributions
>from any other individual within the group. Thus how does an individual
>change a group?
>


Indeed - they can't.

The fact that they may bring out the best or worst in others is hardly
their fault.



--

An URC myth: Cycling is no more dangerous that walking:

Wrong:

The DfT state that there are 533 cyclists killed or seriously injured for every 384 pedestrians.

ie Cycling is 38% more dangerous than walking

[James[_5_]]

On Feb 22, 1:14*am, "Trevor A Panther" >
wrote:
> I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.
>
> So I just logged on *and had a look at what was happening. I was not surprised
>
> It confirmed my ( undisclosed) opinion of this, once, very good cycling NG.
>

Sorry Trevor, but at this point you are part of the problem. You used
to post interesting comments about cycling and your tours, and now all
you do is grumble occasionally.

How are your 2009 tour plans coming along?

James

[Tim Dunne]

Trevor A Panther wrote:
> I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.

8<... protracted whinge

You know, Trevor, this group has always been quite useful to you. When
you recently posted about your expected difficulties, you were inundated
with concern and support. You post about your tours and others post
back, often despite your sometimes acerbic prickliness - you seem to
think that constitutes being outspoken, although often it's just an
excuse to be plain rude. Now, for the n'th time, you gather up your
rattle and security blanket and thrust them out of the pram publicly,
because the people who supported you are not entertaining you in the
manner you desire.

This is disingenuous and not a little rude.

The group is being disrupted by trolls - the best way to beat the likes
of Judith and her alter ego Nuxx is to post about cycling stuff - who
knows, it may even drown out the constant witter from Guy, too - but of
course, this is no good to you because you've ****ed off in a huff...
don't let the door hit your back wheel on the way out.

> I am also going to be even more annoying -- since I shall not respond to
> any posts on this topic of "UM"

Like all drama queens, you seem to be over-estimating your value. When
you've next got a problem, the regulars will no doubt still be here,
doing the same as we've always done.

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

[TerryJ]

Tim Dunne wrote:
> Trevor A Panther wrote:
>> I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.
>
> 8<... protracted whinge
>
> You know, Trevor, this group has always been quite useful to you. When

> you've next got a problem, the regulars will no doubt still be here,
> doing the same as we've always done.
>
> Tim


Here, here.
Killfile the rubbish.
Keep calm and carry on.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <20090222045600.390fe625@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
>On 21 Feb 2009 22:44:49 +0000 (GMT)
(Alan Braggins) wrote:
>
>> In article <20090221185546.35580c9a@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
>> >Mine says "Subscribe to newsgroup ..." but that's not my point -
>> >those are just client-side settings and it's perfectly possible to
>> >read Usenet without a client that has those settings. With Usenet
>> >the content is just sitting there waiting for you to download it
>> >like a web page - it's not the same as subscribing to e.g. a
>> >newsletter, where it's necessary to have a list of subscribers in
>> >order to operate and withdrawal from membership has a tangible
>> >effect.
>>
>> Because that content will still magically just write itself if people
>> give up on the group?
>
>People who don't like a group should change it or go away quietly.
>Whinging doesn't promote a positive attitude and whingers always seem
>to want someone else to fix it for them.

In the sense that anything seen constructively attempting to change the
group won't be labelled as whinging (at least not by the same people),
that's true but unhelpful. It might even be considered whinging.

But it's got nothing to do with the claim that unsubscription has no
tangible effect, which is true only for lurkers. There are trolls whose
departure would be greatly welcomed. There are ex-posters who are missed.
You might not miss some of the "whingers" if they left, but that doesn't
mean it would have no effect.

[judith smith]

On 22 Feb 2009 15:02:21 +0000 (GMT), (Alan
Braggins) wrote:

<snip>

>There are trolls whose
>departure would be greatly welcomed.

We would then not have to be reminded by them that cycling may not
always be as rosy as we make out.

Perhaps if we were more honest with ourselves and newcomers then there
would be no need for the reminders.


--

An URC myth: Cycling is no more dangerous that walking:

Wrong:

The DfT state that there are 533 cyclists killed or seriously injured for every 384 pedestrians.

ie Cycling is 38% more dangerous than walking

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 22, 11:36*am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:28:25 -0000, "Adam Lea" >
> said in >:
>
> >A group is made up of the contributions of the individuals within the group.
> >Any one individual has no influence/is not responsible for the contributions
> >from any other individual within the group. Thus how does an individual
> >change a group?
>
> A particularly toxic or noxious individual whose main aim is
> destruction of a group can do a lot of damage by provoking
> in-fighting, but yes, it is hard for any one individual to
> single-handedly determine the direction of a group.

But you would say that, since you're the person who's most responsible
overall for the state of this group.

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 22, 3:02*pm, (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> In article <20090222045600.390fe625@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
> >On 21 Feb 2009 22:44:49 +0000 (GMT)
> (Alan Braggins) wrote:
>
> >> In article <20090221185546.35580c9a@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
> >> >Mine says "Subscribe to newsgroup ..." but that's not my point -
> >> >those are just client-side settings and it's perfectly possible to
> >> >read Usenet without a client that has those settings. *With Usenet
> >> >the content is just sitting there waiting for you to download it
> >> >like a web page - it's not the same as subscribing to e.g. a
> >> >newsletter, where it's necessary to have a list of subscribers in
> >> >order to operate and withdrawal from membership has a tangible
> >> >effect.
>
> >> Because that content will still magically just write itself if people
> >> give up on the group?
>
> >People who don't like a group should change it or go away quietly. *
> >Whinging doesn't promote a positive attitude and whingers always seem
> >to want someone else to fix it for them.
>
> In the sense that anything seen constructively attempting to change the
> group won't be labelled as whinging (at least not by the same people),
> that's true but unhelpful. It might even be considered whinging.
>
> But it's got nothing to do with the claim that unsubscription has no
> tangible effect, which is true only for lurkers. There are trolls whose
> departure would be greatly welcomed

And *still* Bilbo et al carry on this charade that if only "the
trolls" left, everything would be fine. When are they finally going
to admit that that there will always be "trolls" as long as the
controversial motorist-hating nutters like Crapman and Spindrift
remain, and that the only long-term fix is to get rid of *them*?

Why do Bilbo et al have such a problem with admitting that bad
strategies have failed? Blaming "the trolls" for the state of this
group is one such strategy; speed cameras are another. It doesn't
seem to matter how obvious it becomes that an approach isn't working;
Bilbo and the others will just stubbornly stay with the same approach
regardless, because saying "I was wrong" is something that they just
cannot face, no matter whether it would solve the original problem or
not.

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 21, 10:11*pm, Jeff > wrote:
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:14:46 GMT
> > "Trevor A Panther" > wrote:
>
> >> I unsubscribed from here over a week ago.
>
> > People don't 'subscribe' to Usenet groups, they either read them or they
> > don't.
>
> Depends on your viewpoint. *The tool I use to read Usenet news groups
> talks about "subscribing" to them. *I've seen other tools that do not
> use that terminology.
>
> Regardless, I'll miss Trevor's posts. *He clearly loves cycling. *We
> need more posts about cycling and fewer posts pushing personal agendas.

Exactly. One such personal agenda which is unfortunately pushed here
all too often is a hatred of motorists. That agenda is *completely
incompatible* with cycling and works against cyclists rather than for
them.

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 21, 11:15*pm, Roger Thorpe
> wrote:
> speculate about accidents with inadequate information

I don't notice you complaining much when Spindrift automatically
blames the motorist, as he does whenever he comments on an incident
between a motorist and a "legitimate" road user (and he failed to
point out a contradictory example to this when challenged about it
recently).

Maybe if you and others didn't have such double standards (e.g.
"speculating about accidents with inadequate information is OK as long
as it's not done against cyclists", "nym-shifting is OK as long as
it's not 'the trolls' who do it", etc), this group wouldn't have gone
down the plug'ole in the first place.

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 22, 2:04*pm, Tim Dunne > wrote:
> of Judith and her alter ego Nuxx

No wonder this group is so screwed. You lot are just *so ****ing
thick* it's unbelievable. No matter how obvious it becomes that a
popular misconception in this group is just that, a misconception, it
still gets spouted, because there are so many arrogant twerps here who
just *will not* admit that they were wrong about *anything*.

[Rob Morley]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:28:25 -0000
"Adam Lea" > wrote:

> A group is made up of the contributions of the individuals within the
> group. Any one individual has no influence/is not responsible for the
> contributions from any other individual within the group. Thus how
> does an individual change a group?
>
By improving the signal to noise ratio - ignore negative stuff and
contribute positive content.

[Rob Morley]

On 22 Feb 2009 15:02:21 +0000 (GMT)
(Alan Braggins) wrote:

> In the sense that anything seen constructively attempting to change
> the group won't be labelled as whinging (at least not by the same
> people), that's true but unhelpful. It might even be considered
> whinging.

At least I'm not wringing my hands. :-)
>
> But it's got nothing to do with the claim that unsubscription has no
> tangible effect, which is true only for lurkers.

You appear to be confusing subscription with contribution.

[Alan Braggins]

In article <20090224024304.598c6398@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
(Alan Braggins) wrote:
>> But it's got nothing to do with the claim that unsubscription has no
>> tangible effect, which is true only for lurkers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>You appear to be confusing subscription with contribution.

[judith smith]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:50:05 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
> wrote:

<snip>



At least I post as myself without resorting to anatomises.

I thought Chapman was a spineless maggot; but you could be worse -
unless of course .........




--
Is the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation biased?
What do you think?
Published evidence supportive of helmet effectiveness or promotion - number of references 19.
Published evidence sceptical of helmet effectiveness or promotion - number of references 57.

[Rob Morley]

On 24 Feb 2009 12:28:06 +0000 (GMT)
(Alan Braggins) wrote:

> In article <20090224024304.598c6398@bluemoon>, Rob Morley wrote:
> (Alan Braggins) wrote:
> >> But it's got nothing to do with the claim that unsubscription has
> >> no tangible effect, which is true only for lurkers.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >You appear to be confusing subscription with contribution.
>
I saw that already. You said it's got nothing to do with it, and in
the same breath that it does sometimes. My point was that the actual
act of unsubscription has no effect on the group's status - the only
thing a user (rather than server admin) does that alters its state is
making (or cancelling, but good luck with that) a post. Announcing "I'm
unsubscribing" is either a flounce, attention-seeking behaviour or
trolling. If a group no longer interests me I just stop reading it.
Perhaps I'm looking at it more from the POV of a computer person than a
people person, as a collection of data rather than a social interaction.

[Just zis Guy, you know?[_2_]]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 06:08:55 +0000, whitebeard
> said in
>:

>I still lurk on the group but the volume is very small and mostly from
>the irrelevant one. If ever they finally decide to go I might try to
>reclaim the group I helped breathe life into nine years ago. But
>whilst they hang around like the proverbial bad smell having poisoned
>the group, it is not safe to return.

Sounds like Ed Dolan.

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
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE <http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt>

[Adam Funk[_3_]]

On 2009-02-22, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> A particularly toxic or noxious individual whose main aim is
> destruction of a group can do a lot of damage by provoking
> in-fighting, but yes, it is hard for any one individual to
> single-handedly determine the direction of a group.

Has setting up a moderated newsgroup been discussed (and rejected)
here previously?

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2009-02-22, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> A particularly toxic or noxious individual whose main aim is
>> destruction of a group can do a lot of damage by provoking
>> in-fighting, but yes, it is hard for any one individual to
>> single-handedly determine the direction of a group.
>
> Has setting up a moderated newsgroup been discussed (and rejected)
> here previously?

I believe it has. The question always remains as to who you trust to do the
moderating in a fair manner (i.e that their judgement is not influenced by
their own strong opinions)

[Adam Lea[_2_]]

Rob Morley wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:28:25 -0000
> "Adam Lea" > wrote:
>
>> A group is made up of the contributions of the individuals within the
>> group. Any one individual has no influence/is not responsible for the
>> contributions from any other individual within the group. Thus how
>> does an individual change a group?
>>
> By improving the signal to noise ratio - ignore negative stuff and
> contribute positive content.

Yes I guess that is about the best one can do.

This implies that those who cease posting through frustration are actually
contributing to the decline.

[Rob Morley]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:44:15 -0000
"Adam Lea" > wrote:

> Rob Morley wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:28:25 -0000
> > "Adam Lea" > wrote:
> >
> >> A group is made up of the contributions of the individuals within
> >> the group. Any one individual has no influence/is not responsible
> >> for the contributions from any other individual within the group.
> >> Thus how does an individual change a group?
> >>
> > By improving the signal to noise ratio - ignore negative stuff and
> > contribute positive content.
>
> Yes I guess that is about the best one can do.
>
> This implies that those who cease posting through frustration are
> actually contributing to the decline.
>
>
It does rather, doesn't it?

[Rob Morley]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:09:27 +0000
Adam Funk > wrote:

> On 2009-02-22, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > A particularly toxic or noxious individual whose main aim is
> > destruction of a group can do a lot of damage by provoking
> > in-fighting, but yes, it is hard for any one individual to
> > single-handedly determine the direction of a group.
>
> Has setting up a moderated newsgroup been discussed (and rejected)
> here previously?

Yes, both here and in uk.net.news.config

[Tosspot[_2_]]

Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2009-02-22, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> A particularly toxic or noxious individual whose main aim is
>> destruction of a group can do a lot of damage by provoking
>> in-fighting, but yes, it is hard for any one individual to
>> single-handedly determine the direction of a group.
>
> Has setting up a moderated newsgroup been discussed (and rejected)
> here previously?

Yes, and rejected to a degree, there are moderated forums about if you
like. It should be pointed out that one person doesn't cause any
damage, look at Ed. It, as they say, takes two to tango and there are
some right royal ****wits around here that should know better.

But still, it isn't anywhere as near as bad as it was, despite what
Trev says.

[Nuxx Bar]

On Feb 24, 11:42 pm, "Adam Lea" > wrote:
> Adam Funk wrote:
> > On 2009-02-22, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> >> A particularly toxic or noxious individual whose main aim is
> >> destruction of a group can do a lot of damage by provoking
> >> in-fighting, but yes, it is hard for any one individual to
> >> single-handedly determine the direction of a group.
>
> > Has setting up a moderated newsgroup been discussed (and rejected)
> > here previously?
>
> I believe it has. The question always remains as to who you trust to do the
> moderating in a fair manner (i.e that their judgement is not influenced by
> their own strong opinions)

What you mean is that you (and others) want someone who will censor
discussions about anti-motorist measures et al which are being won by
the non-car-haters (i.e. most such discussions), but you know really
that anyone who was willing to do that would be a power-crazed ****wit
who would abuse their status as a moderator and thus be totally
unsuitable (Spindrift and Chapman being two of the more obvious
examples of such people).

Doesn't that tell you something about your stance towards anti-
motorist measures? If I found that of those who agreed with me about
something, there was an usually high concentration of dickheads, I
would be forced to seriously consider whether my viewpoint about the
"something" in question was really correct.