|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Not welcome in URCM if English is not perfect.
Iain wrote:
I am trying to work out how does one find out about this. Follow up original references and make up your own mind seems to be best practice. Sadly it's not always possible becuase of lack of easy access to research materials, lacking the science skills to fully understand many of them, or more simply plain old time. But there is sadly not a single authoritative source that everyone feels they can trust. As should be evident when you look through the Great Helmet Flame War history on urcm (extending to the present day, even the present hour). For a good summary start /my/ personal suggestion (which might be biased/wrong/whatever, but you must decide yourself) is the Annex of Tim Gill's summary for the National Children's Bureau, "Cycling and Children and Young People". Hopefully we can assume that the NCB don't have too much of an axe to grind except children's welfare. You can find it at: http://www.ncb.org.uk/dotpdf/open%20...ill_200512.pdf 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 http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Not welcome in URCM if English is not perfect.
"Iain" wrote in
: "Percy Picacity" wrote in message ... "Iain" wrote in : and what 'already discussed topics' am I not allowed to discuss or will not appear in new topics? A relatively simple question to ask, but no-one is listening because no-one is answering (or even able to answer because I do not think that it has been properly thought out). Iain As an observer, the answer would seem to be that you are allowed to discuss any topic, but if your contribution to the discussion is merely a reiteration of what someone has just said, with no new argument or information, it may not be passed if the moderators have decided that the thread, or a very recent similar one, has become repetitive or bad- tempered. It has to apply to new threads on the same topic, otherwise people will just spawn new threads to evade the closure of the old one. That seems reasonable, even if the execution may be imperfect. Ultimately, you can always try it and see if a post is accepted, which is fine as long as you are not one of those people who take a rejected post too personally. The impression that I get is that if it is a reiteration of something that has been said in the past (I'm not sure how far back that goes) it may not be passed. I can understand it if a thread starts going around in circles - that is usual and acceptable. It's the business of the moderators seemingly blocking posts or being asked to block posts because it is going onto helmets, that I do not understand. Yet within the same thread more posts on helmets appear afterwards. There are some criteria that are blocking some posts on helmets, yet allowing other subsequent ones on helmets - all within the same thread. I am trying to work out how does one find out about this. Well I read the same thread as you, and I was quite impressed with the moderation. A reprise of the positions on the value of helmets was carried out over a dozen or so posts (including an accusation of "bias" agains a web site set up to put forward a particular point of view, which could have been naivety but appeared to be trolling, I thought it was quite good of the moderators to allow this considering its author. Really why anyone should think any source of information smaller than the British Library is likely to be unbiased is beyond me.) Followed by a statement that further repetition with no new information would not be allowed. Followed by a few posts allowed discussing new information on the fallibility of the underlying casualty statistics which added to the discussion without repetition. This all seems remarkably consistent to me. -- Percy Picacity |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Not welcome in URCM if English is not perfect.
On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:12:48 +0100, bugbear
wrote: Toom Tabard wrote: So let us again ask the moderators: how many contributors were new to the issue and what data do you have on passive readers for whom it may have been new and possibly interesting? Such an argument would justify indefinite and high-frequency repetition. Which would appeal to "36", but no other regular posters. BugBear and you "know" this precisely how? -- 2008 DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 541 Pedestrians 382 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3814 Pedestrians : 1666 (Pedal cyclist casualties up 9% - pedestrians up 2%: Cycling is becoming more dangerous each year when compared to walking as a means of transport) |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Not welcome in URCM if English is not perfect.
On Tue, 25 May 2010 14:52:05 +0000 (UTC),
Percy Picacity wrote: "Iain" wrote in : and what 'already discussed topics' am I not allowed to discuss or will not appear in new topics? A relatively simple question to ask, but no-one is listening because no-one is answering (or even able to answer because I do not think that it has been properly thought out). Iain As an observer, the answer would seem to be that you are allowed to discuss any topic, but if your contribution to the discussion is merely a reiteration of what someone has just said, with no new argument or information, it may not be passed if the moderators have decided that the thread, or a very recent similar one, has become repetitive or bad- tempered. Additionally we try to give new members the benefit of the doubt even if the subject has appeared in the recent past. Especially if they show a clue which I think Iain did, to be fair, on the thread that arose out of bents. -- Andy Leighton = "The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials" - Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_ |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Not welcome in URCM if English is not perfect.
On Tue, 25 May 2010 11:07:24 +0100, Peter Clinch
wrote: snip And many in the past have found helmet debates sufficiently uninteresting and uninformative that they've gone elsewhere for /any/ information. And you know this precisely how? "many" - eh - could you expand 5, 10, 15 perhaps 20? It is odd that URCM had to be formed because ****wits could not use a kill-file in URC. It seems to me that the same ****wits still don't know how to use a kill-file and the hand-picked moderation team are doing their best to accommodate then - to the detriment of other old and new posters. -- 2008 DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 541 Pedestrians 382 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3814 Pedestrians : 1666 (Pedal cyclist casualties up 9% - pedestrians up 2%: Cycling is becoming more dangerous each year when compared to walking as a means of transport) |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Not welcome in URCM if English is not perfect.
On 25 May, 09:12, bugbear wrote:
Such an argument would justify indefinite and high-frequency repetition. Which would appeal to "36", but no other regular posters. It doesn't. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Not welcome in URCM if English is not perfect.
thirty-six wrote:
On 25 May, 09:12, bugbear wrote: Such an argument would justify indefinite and high-frequency repetition. Which would appeal to "36", but no other regular posters. It doesn't. Logically, I guess it appeals to no one at all then. BugBear |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Not welcome in URCM if English is not perfect.
JMS wrote:
On Tue, 25 May 2010 09:12:48 +0100, bugbear wrote: Toom Tabard wrote: So let us again ask the moderators: how many contributors were new to the issue and what data do you have on passive readers for whom it may have been new and possibly interesting? Such an argument would justify indefinite and high-frequency repetition. Which would appeal to "36", but no other regular posters. BugBear and you "know" this precisely how? Telepathy. Good of "you" to ask. BugBear |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Not welcome in URCM if English is not perfect.
In article , Percy Picacity wrote:
As an observer, the answer would seem to be that you are allowed to discuss any topic, but if your contribution to the discussion is merely a reiteration of what someone has just said, with no new argument or information, it may not be passed if the moderators have decided that the thread, or a very recent similar one, has become repetitive or bad- tempered. It has to apply to new threads on the same topic, otherwise people will just spawn new threads to evade the closure of the old one. Exactly, give or take quibbles about whether its "very recent" or just "recent" (and assuming that "any topic" means "any cycling related topic"). It's not ideal if someone who happened to first join the group just after such a thread finds their innocent attempts to bring up the subject again rejected, but it's also not ideal if most of the posters' reaction is "Oh God, not again, we just did this" either (or even "why is this troll being allowed to start this up" - we wouldn't reject a post just because one or two people might possibly suspect it was a troll, but if it gets to the point that general consensus is that the same arguments are being brought up once again just to inflame, that's different). (A FAQ might help anyone who wasn't familiar with the history understand that reaction.) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Not welcome in URCM if English is not perfect.
On Tue, 25 May 2010 14:15:57 +0100, Clive George wrote:
On 25/05/2010 13:58, Iain wrote: "Percy Picacity" wrote in message ... Just to express a contrary view, it seems quite reasonable to me to allow any topic to be discussed but to terminate threads that get repetitious or bad-tempered. And, no, there isn't any truly objective way do decide this. I can understand that for an established topic that is starting to go round in circles and repeat itself; but to try and define at the start of a topic that it is repetitious is treading on dangerous subjectivity and vagueness. That is the point I was making. It is an established topic. It's been that way for years. Anybody who's followed any cycling newsgroup will know that. It's also not new to URCM. Nor, indeed, was it new in this specific instance at the time when moderators decided to wind it down; it had already been round the block once. -- ;; Semper in faecibus sumus, sole profundam variat |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
URC v URD, UKT & URCM | Squashme | UK | 41 | January 4th 10 11:38 PM |
URCM? | Marc[_2_] | UK | 27 | January 4th 10 06:43 PM |
URCM | Marc[_2_] | UK | 29 | December 16th 09 08:39 PM |
urcm It is using urc to do its own job | Trevor A Panther | UK | 20 | November 13th 09 06:49 PM |
Re Proposed URCM | jms | UK | 9 | May 29th 09 04:12 PM |