urcm It is using urc to do its own job

uk.rec.cycling.moderated is using urc to manage its "mismanagement of urcm"

So it seems that whenever urcm has disgruntled poster then the moderators
use urc to air their opinions.

I keep reading that there are suitable avenue for posters to approach the
"moderators" to resolve the situation.

It seems to me however that the opposite does not happen.

It would seem that urc is to become a place where moderastors ..... and
others , are unable to email dusgruntled members of urcm and deal with
matters in their own "house" -- and inst6ead post on urc!!!!!


(In the case of "36" and BenC they are clearly trolls of the first order
who are just posting repetitious cycling garbage again and again and they
have already been in my sin bin for a week!)

But now we have the nmoderators from urcm posting back on urc and troll
wrestling -- Alan Braggins back to his old tricks and of course Clive
George (a non moderator who keeps going on how brilliant it is on urcm) has
to dip his oar in again

It is quite amazing that urcm have to do their dirty washing here on urc.

I thought urc was to far gone to be useable. I thought that the main
submission made by Ian Jackson in his 2nd RFD was that urc was unusable

It was indeed virtually the only reason submitted for the formation of urcm.

I quote

"uk.rec.cycling has for some time been suffering from trolling,
nym-shifting and forgeries. Many of these posts are abusive and
hostile to cycling. There are even credible allegations of real-world
harassment such as abusive late night phone calls. Repetitive flamage
now constitutes 50-75% of the group by number of articles. This
ongoing and worsening problem has been making the group nearly
unuseable for ordinary discussion; many posters have already left.

I therefore propose that we should create:

uk.rec.cycling.moderated"


It is also stated

"The following are prohibited:
* Advertising which is not specifically relevant to UK cycling;


* Personal abuse, flames, obscenity;



* Repetitious posting which does not bring new information to the
discussion."

So I must say that i find it more than a little trite that a moderator from
urcm replies to a post by me on urc saying

"
And I suggest you get a ****ing clue."

Sad to say I responded to his abusive post. It is not a thing of which I am
proud

So let me be succint

Jackson has created a clear division. But of course anyone can post on urc
BUT not on urcm.

That being the case I would expect that the Junta ( unelected and in power
for an unlimited time) to respect the division so created and and above all
stay away from urc.

It seems that despite the degredation of urc and the impossiblilty to talk
cycling there, that members of the junta ( aka moderating team) cdannot
stay away.

Iackson has been here "electioneering" on behalf of the "cabal ( a sub unit
of the Junta) which is trying to widen its influence and do a take over of
the committee ( There must be some money in chiark?)

Peter Clinch, that erudite Scot( ?), jst can't stay away at all!

And now Braggins has returned to justify himself as well.

So there it is a quarter of the moderating panel ( none elected and lifetime
members) are still using urc .

SO

All i am suggesting ( and not for the first time) is that urcm must
establish a an "in group" area where suitable discussion and grievamces can
be aired. it is actually very easy. Just one specific "endless topic" ( and
urcm already runs endless topics") where situations created by moderation
can be thrashed out.

otherwise it is to the detriment of both groups.

I do give fair warning on this subject. I am very geniuinely concerned and I
will take an active part in trying to resolve it!

Not in a daft way, not even through rose tinted glasses or even with
expletives!

BTW I have voted in the UK Usenetr Committee election. Guess who I have not
voted for!!!!! I would not make the same mistake twice!

Trevor A Panther
on urc

Trevor A Panther wrote:
uk.rec.cycling.moderated is using urc to manage its "mismanagement of urcm"

So it seems that whenever urcm has disgruntled poster then the moderators
use urc to air their opinions.

It's not a very exclusive club, but welcome. You can also troll
wrestle here, wrestle with troll wrestlers, argue about wheel
building, classic car rallies and cycling on pavements.

If you feel you need something a little more, substantial, unsubscribe

In article ,
says...

uk.rec.cycling.moderated is using urc to manage its "mismanagement of urcm"

So it seems that whenever urcm has disgruntled poster then the moderators
use urc to air their opinions.

What do you expect? Is anyone really surprised by anything that these
people do anymore?

Clive
George (a non moderator who keeps going on how brilliant it is on urcm) has
to dip his oar in again

It's been established that he *is* a "moderator", and that's why he
keeps defending urcm (apologies if you already knew that). His real
name is Clive George but he "moderates" under a pseudonym (we don't know
which but there are only 3 or 4 possibilities). Of course the inherent
dishonesty in doing such a thing is unbecoming of a "moderator", but I
don't think anyone's too surprised by now, since the urcm "moderators"
are by far the worst group of "moderators" I've *ever* seen in terms of
censorship, dishonesty, incompetence, obnoxiousness and prejudice.

It is quite amazing that urcm have to do their dirty washing here on urc.

I thought urc was to far gone to be useable. I thought that the main
submission made by Ian Jackson in his 2nd RFD was that urc was unusable

Like pretty much everything else he does, this was an example of Jackson
telling a shameless, cynical lie in order to get something that *he*
wanted: in this case, a "newsgroup" where he could censor anyone who
posted facts that he personally didn't want to be reminded of...and so
it has come to pass, with MattB being routinely censored for daring to
point out true things about "speeding" that the car-haters find
inconvenient and would rather weren't true (e.g. "Speed cameras
kill"...damn them, why can't they just save lives, and then the motorist
scum would just have to put up with them). After all, if you can't hack
reality and desperately don't want something to be true, the next best
thing to it being false is to pretend it's false and censor anyone who
says otherwise, eh car-haters?

BTW I have voted in the UK Usenetr Committee election. Guess who I
have not
voted for!!!!! I would not make the same mistake twice!

There's no doubt that Jackson is an utter cnut. People like him and
people like Chapman cause the real problems on groups like urc.

Trevor A Panther
on urc

It's always good when a longstanding poster criticises the clique, as
the clique can't simply dismiss them with silly names like "troll" as an
excuse for not addressing their points...instead, they've got to
grudgingly pretend to take the criticism seriously. Let's see what
insincere crap they come up with for this thread.

In article ,
says...

Trevor A Panther wrote:
uk.rec.cycling.moderated is using urc to manage its "mismanagement of urcm"

So it seems that whenever urcm has disgruntled poster then the moderators
use urc to air their opinions.

It's not a very exclusive club, but welcome. You can also troll
wrestle here, wrestle with troll wrestlers, argue about wheel
building, classic car rallies and cycling on pavements.

If you feel you need something a little more, substantial, unsubscribe

Why are you here then? Just another arse who complains about urc while
using it for their own ends and refusing to **** off.

"Trevor A Panther" wrote in message
...

It is quite amazing that urcm have to do their dirty washing here on urc.

You should have noticed that any dirty laundry is bought along by others -
the posts you're complaining about are made by people in reply to others.

That being the case I would expect that the Junta ( unelected and in power
for an unlimited time) to respect the division so created and and above
all stay away from urc.

Absolutely no reason to do so. And if they're getting grief on urc,
addressing those concerns seems pertinent.

It seems that despite the degredation of urc and the impossiblilty to talk
cycling there, that members of the junta ( aka moderating team) cdannot
stay away.

You're shouting at the wrong people. Persuade people like Trevor/thirty-six
to not bring their gripes here, and you're sorted.

All i am suggesting ( and not for the first time) is that urcm must
establish a an "in group" area where suitable discussion and grievamces
can be aired. it is actually very easy. Just one specific "endless topic"
( and urcm already runs endless topics") where situations created by
moderation can be thrashed out.

There is already a suitable place for this discussion -
uk.net.news.moderation. You've even posted there.

I do give fair warning on this subject. I am very geniuinely concerned and
I will take an active part in trying to resolve it!

You've already spent vastly more time complaining about urcm than you have
done writing about bikes. You're a serious part of your problem yourself,
though for some reason you don't seem to recognise it.

If you want to read and write about bikes, do as I and many others are
doing, and just do it. You'll find significantly more talk about bikes on
urcm than on urc, but if you really can't cope with the idea of moderation
then you'll have to stay here with Nuxxy, Doug and his mates.

If you want to get urc to talk about bikes, talk about bikes, not urcm. Yes,
that means you will need to exercise self control - but right now you're
exhibiting all the problems you accuse others of.

"Ian Jackson is a Cnut" wrote in
message

,slashed.

It's always good when a longstanding poster criticises the clique, as
the clique can't simply dismiss them with silly names like "troll" as an
excuse for not addressing their points...instead, they've got to
grudgingly pretend to take the criticism seriously. Let's see what
insincere crap they come up with for this thread.


Posted to urc for info.

I have not got the time or indeed the inclination to find out who you
actually are and I must admit that I am not convinced by your apparent
support.

The fact that you use a clear abusive term in your "from" does not endear
you to me! Probabaly Judith/Nuxx or who ever.

Hopefully any response to my posts will be as sincere asmine are intended to
be. I do realise the danger of a "flame war " here and it is to be avoided.

However my own experince and indeed, historical experience has too oft shown
that benevelant dictatorships frequently degenerate into simple
dictatorships.

That is my reason for the suggestions below. Which are just a start!



I will make a few constructive suggestions to the "owner" of urcm.

1.. Introduce a time limitation on the period that moderators can serve.

2. Bar the re election of any previous moderator for at least one election
period

3. 3 moderators should be retired perhaps every year.There should be an "in
house"annual election to replace those three members. This is certainly not
difficult to arrange without all the kerfuffle of setting up urcm -- which
seems to have produced

4. any moderator who is posting on urcm should, in his signature block,
display the fact that he is a moderator of that group!

I believe that an in house electorial system is very important.


I do believe that there is a basic fault in the current setup of urcm.

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

"Clive George" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Trevor A Panther" wrote in message
...


snipped..

If you want to read and write about bikes, do as I and many others are
doing, and just do it. You'll find significantly more talk about bikes on
urcm than on urc, but if you really can't cope with the idea of moderation
then you'll have to stay here with Nuxxy, Doug and his mates.

If you want to get urc to talk about bikes, talk about bikes, not urcm.
Yes,
that means you will need to exercise self control - but right now you're
exhibiting all the problems you accuse others of.




it seems to me that you are responding in a fashion which brings to mind a
phrase

"The pot calling the kettle black"

Your posts "off topic" on urc are far more than mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

"Trevor A Panther" wrote in message
...

it seems to me that you are responding in a fashion which brings to mind a
phrase

"The pot calling the kettle black"

Your posts "off topic" on urc are far more than mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's see, shall we?

November posts from Trevor A Panther:

bike related : 9
not-bike related : 16

from Clive George:

bike related : 4
not-bike related : 2, now 3

Looks like I'm rather more on-topic than you are.

Trevor A Panther wrote:

8... yawn

Isn't it about time for your six-monthly hissy fit - you know, the one
where you whinge there's too much infighting and then stomp off muttering?

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

In message , Trevor A Panther
writes


uk.rec.cycling.moderated is using urc to manage its "mismanagement of urcm"


Not at all.

So it seems that whenever urcm has disgruntled poster then the moderators
use urc to air their opinions.


Not true, there were some threads a little while ago true, but that has
died down. However there has been plenty of discussion over on unnm

snip a bit of a rant

Oh you are funny Trevor :-)

You know you are looking somewhat obsessed here. ISTM that it is you
stirring the **** here.

It is Thirtysix who has dragged a couple of rejected posts from urcm
into urc. Neither the mods nor anyone else who posts has control over
that, so why go off on one about that to other people.?

Yep, I think that was inappropriate, as I pointed out. One moderator
replied in that thread agreeing also that it was wrong. Though of course
you then saw fit to post yet another of your 'go away to urcm' posts in
reply, so extending the thread a bit. which was particularly stupid of
you since the post was in urc, so it'd be hard to post a reply to it in
another newsgroup

Since the 1/11/09 you have posted 25 times 15 of those posts were off
topic stuff, lots relating to your urcm obsession.

I've posted 7, times once was in reply to Thirtysix re an urcm
rejection, one off topic, the rest on cycling.

Clive, another of your obsessions, has posted 7 times, 3 off topic on
urcm related posts, 2 of them in reply to you in this thread :-)

Of the mods,

Alan Braggins has 4 posts, 3 of those off topic, though one was in reply
to you when you had to stir things again.

Pete clinch has a few posts, all on topic cycling stuff.

And that's it, I can't see any other posts by urcm moderators here in
that time, let alone any on stuff relating to urcm.

And now you have started a whole off topic thread in urc about it,
surely the irony hasn't passed you by Trevor :-)

So really Trevor, where does the problem lie?


--
Chris French