Censorship in uk.rec.cycling.moderated

On Jul 8, 12:41*am, Andy Leighton wrote:
Hello Judith.

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 22:35:11 +0000 (UTC), margaretsmith wrote:
A psycholist is trying to make uk.rec.cycling moderated so that nobody will
have a right of reply to anti-motorist abuse that is rife on that group..

How can any content be rife on a group that doesn't exist yet?

Crossposting is being deliberately allowed so that Guy Chapman and his mates
can crosspost to motorist groups while censoring the replies.

Outright lie. *Crossposting between the proposed group and motorist
groups will not happen. *

His moderators frequently use the term "cager" to attack motorists - yet
they claim they will censor personal abuse. One of them forges the
contents of other people's posts. *He is Alan Braggins.

More lies.

Actually, that's not really, strictly, fair.

I've been trying to find a parallel between, say, Digby
Jones's assertions that men will do certain things if
told certain things, albeit perhaps by certain people
and preferably in a certain way, and the signs on the
buses which instruct passengers to press the bell
or buzzer before their stop, stay in their seats until
the bus is stationary, and then alight.

It's not like the drivers give anybody time to get to
a seat before setting off, so it can't be for insurance
purposes.

And even at half sodding six in the morning, when
the only hold-up is traffic lights, it's not possible to
get a bus to run between a city and a major town
on time. Which stuffs connections. Once or twice
you can put up with but when the only time you do
get a bus you should technically have almost 10
minutes to catch is when it's five minutes late itself....

Then they sit at timing points for 5 minutes, with
engines still running, while the parent company
blames fuel prices for hike on hike in fares. Fares
which cost twice what I spend on fuel for a full week
for the motorbike (which is awaiting a new hydraulic
caliper, one possess of piston inserts, second-hand
bikes eh!).

Yes, as there are no buses for my early rotation
starts I walk in. And you know what? It's about
5 minutes quicker. Only after a night on my feet
it's all uphill and I can't be bothered.

Anyway, this thread grabbed my interest instead.

One observation which must be made straight off
the bat is that the term "cager" is not in the least
a new or original term for car, van, truck, bus, coach,
minibus, tractor, transporter, JCB or whatever drivers.

It has been in use in news:rec.motorcycles since
at least 1990. This is from before there was enough
interest for a special uk.* group for motorcyclists
and it was all motorcyclists together, wherever we
hailed from--albeit there may have been a false
dichotomy between "bikes" and "scooters". I do
gather, though, that scooterists are keen to see
this false dichotomy perpetuated.

I hadn't been aware it had made it over to the more
mainstream world of full-floaters, and fixies (and no,
that's not an obscure heroin-addicted riot grrrl with a
ego complex, for those whose alarm buttons had all
been going off) but it's no surprise.

And yes, the question of whether or not there should
be a forum in which cyclists can console one another
over the crass actions of so many muddle-headed
motorists is a moot one. Of course there should.

But how seriously someone cross-posting from, say,
news:alt.flame.psychiatry to, say, uk.legal - even
if all flames are based on absurdities of mental health
law as enacted in the UK - remains to be seen.

And, as that is analogous to what the OP is prophesying,
not to mention the fact that moderators will presumably
have authority to limit cross-posting to relevant fora only,
rather implies that this is a somewhat sensationalist
attempt to curry new interest in an old newsgroup.

I mean, let's just forget altogether, shall we, for a
moment, that there are precious few stand-alone
moderated groups on USENET that don't have an
unmoderated sibling (news:sci.virtual-worlds was
one exception to this rule of thumb).

Similarly, why would there be any need to remove
news:uk.rec.cycling from the newsrc? All that is
being mooted is the foundation of a new, moderated
group.

Perhaps the OP's efforts might be better redoubled
in trying to shut down MySpace, Facebook, Bebo
and the like in which ANYONE can complain and
the employed (unelected, non-democratic, privately
interviewed and enagaged) workforce can censor you!

So, thankyou OP. I really wouldn't have had the
faintest idea what the world was coming to had you
not posted a load of irrelevant, discognisant tripe!

X-posted to news:uk.rec.cycling - for good measure -
and news:uk.transport.buses, but NOT X-posted to
uk.rec.motorcycles as they'll already know all the
relevant details.

If there's a reason for a moderated group, and people
are willing to do the moderation properly, I see no
reason why there shouldn't be one, configurators.

Not that it's come to a vote yet so far as I know.

G DAEB
COPYRIGHT (C) 2009 SIPSTON
--

Nobody will be allowed to vote on whether or not Chapman or anybody else
can be a moderator - undemocratic.

Guy Chapman isn't even a possible moderator - I believe he has publicly
said he doesn't want to be one. *The vote is a normal vote for a
moderated group - do you want the group with the moderators or not.
Surely that is democratic?

Nobody will be allowed to know if or why a post has been censored or who
is blocked from posting.

Lies. *It has been explained that the moderators will try to contact the
individual who has had a post blocked.

Chapman posted as 'Lou Knee' and still will not deny it.

Irrelevant and probably a lie.

Chapman posted as 'Sniper' and others to boost support for his new group.

The group isn't Guy Chapman's. *Guy didn't post as Sniper - Sniper is
well known to urc from days gone by. *Can you give evidence of anyone
else he may have posted as? *I doubt it, in complete contrast to your
good self - I think this is the third name I've spotted you use.

--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
* *- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

In message
, G
Daeb writes

And, as that is analogous to what the OP is prophesying,
not to mention the fact that moderators will presumably
have authority to limit cross-posting to relevant fora only,
rather implies that this is a somewhat sensationalist
attempt to curry new interest in an old newsgroup.

It's an attempt to get enough people to vote against the creation of
urcm. The OP appears to be nym-shift of one of the more disruptive (to
be polite) poster to urc.

If I've kept up with the RFD discussion cross posts to other groups are
not going to be generally allowed

I mean, let's just forget altogether, shall we, for a
moment, that there are precious few stand-alone
moderated groups on USENET that don't have an
unmoderated sibling (news:sci.virtual-worlds was
one exception to this rule of thumb).

Similarly, why would there be any need to remove
news:uk.rec.cycling from the newsrc? All that is
being mooted is the foundation of a new, moderated
group.

There is no intention to remove urc anyway


If there's a reason for a moderated group, and people
are willing to do the moderation properly, I see no
reason why there shouldn't be one, configurators.

Not that it's come to a vote yet so far as I know.

no, waiting for the CFV
--
Chris French

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:33:52 +0100, chris French
wrote:

If I've kept up with the RFD discussion cross posts to other groups are
not going to be generally allowed

Indeed. And in any case I don think those named by the OP have any
significant history of starting crossposted threads. Funnily enough,
though, the OP has started several under various nyms; perhaps the
message is actually that she does not trust herself not to do this
again, in which case the repeated clarifications by the moderators
that it will not be permitted should go some way to allaying those
fears - although perhaps not, since the original post was made in
spite of those assurances already being on record.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
Newsgroup may contain nuts.

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:33:52 +0100, chris French
wrote:

In message
, G
Daeb writes

And, as that is analogous to what the OP is prophesying,
not to mention the fact that moderators will presumably
have authority to limit cross-posting to relevant fora only,
rather implies that this is a somewhat sensationalist
attempt to curry new interest in an old newsgroup.

It's an attempt to get enough people to vote against the creation of
urcm. The OP appears to be nym-shift of one of the more disruptive (to
be polite) poster to urc.

If I've kept up with the RFD discussion cross posts to other groups are
not going to be generally allowed

I mean, let's just forget altogether, shall we, for a
moment, that there are precious few stand-alone
moderated groups on USENET that don't have an
unmoderated sibling (news:sci.virtual-worlds was
one exception to this rule of thumb).

Similarly, why would there be any need to remove
news:uk.rec.cycling from the newsrc? All that is
being mooted is the foundation of a new, moderated
group.

There is no intention to remove urc anyway


If there's a reason for a moderated group, and people
are willing to do the moderation properly, I see no
reason why there shouldn't be one, configurators.

Not that it's come to a vote yet so far as I know.

no, waiting for the CFV




for clarification: despite the intention to appear so - it was not
from me.

It was from someone trying to blacken my name - I cannot guess who -
someone despicable.

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:51:36 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:33:52 +0100, chris French
wrote:

If I've kept up with the RFD discussion cross posts to other groups are
not going to be generally allowed

Indeed. And in any case I don think those named by the OP have any
significant history of starting crossposted threads. Funnily enough,
though, the OP has started several under various nyms; perhaps the
message is actually that she does not trust herself not to do this
again, in which case the repeated clarifications by the moderators
that it will not be permitted should go some way to allaying those
fears - although perhaps not, since the original post was made in
spite of those assurances already being on record.

Guy


You know damn well that it wasn't me who made the post Chapman - you
are despicable.

Just trying to get my vote disallowed are you?



for clarification: despite the intention to appear so - it was not
from me.

It was from someone trying to blacken my name - I cannot guess who -
someone who is despicable.

jms wrote:


It was from someone trying to blacken my name - I cannot guess who -
someone despicable.



That'd be the Wabbit.

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

G Daeb wrote:

And even at half sodding six in the morning, when
the only hold-up is traffic lights, it's not possible to
get a bus to run between a city and a major town
on time. Which stuffs connections. Once or twice
you can put up with but when the only time you do
get a bus you should technically have almost 10
minutes to catch is when it's five minutes late itself....

Bus companies are just as liable to obey traffic rules as any other road
user, and thanks to de-regulation they no longer have any influence
there either. If the LA inserts a new set of traffic lights the bus
company can't do anything about it but just adapt their timetables to
suit. Or alternatively do nothing.

When you think about it, its the time you spend stopped that makes a
difference to any journey time, much more than the speed between traffic
lights. A lot of motorists don't have the first understanding of this
and it seems some of these may be the ones who work for bus companies
setting timetables.

Then they sit at timing points for 5 minutes, with
engines still running, while the parent company
blames fuel prices for hike on hike in fares. Fares
which cost twice what I spend on fuel for a full week
for the motorbike (which is awaiting a new hydraulic
caliper, one possess of piston inserts, second-hand
bikes eh!).

The reason why buses (and trains) can sit at any timing point is that
they generally aren't allowed to leave that point ahead of the schedule.
Stopping at stops for long periods (my own bugbear) is the result of one
man operation, so that every passenger has to transact some business
with the driver at any busy stop.

One observation which must be made straight off
the bat is that the term "cager" is not in the least
a new or original term for car, van, truck, bus, coach,
minibus, tractor, transporter, JCB or whatever drivers.

It has been in use in news:rec.motorcycles since
at least 1990. This is from before there was enough
interest for a special uk.* group for motorcyclists
and it was all motorcyclists together, wherever we
hailed from--albeit there may have been a false
dichotomy between "bikes" and "scooters". I do
gather, though, that scooterists are keen to see
this false dichotomy perpetuated.

And as long as I've been riding bikes it has been in general use - this
dates back to the late 60s no less.

--
John Wright

"jms" wrote in message
...


for clarification: despite the intention to appear so - it was not
from me.

It was from someone trying to blacken my name - I cannot guess who -
someone who is despicable.

What proof do you have?

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 09:21:11 +0100, "Allan"
wrote:


"jms" wrote in message
.. .


for clarification: despite the intention to appear so - it was not
from me.

It was from someone trying to blacken my name - I cannot guess who -
someone who is despicable.

What proof do you have?



Sorry old bean - proof of what?

On 8 July, 15:16, jms wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:33:52 +0100, chris French



wrote:
In message
, G
Daeb writes

And, as that is analogous to what the OP is prophesying,
not to mention the fact that moderators will presumably
have authority to limit cross-posting to relevant fora only,
rather implies that this is a somewhat sensationalist
attempt to curry new interest in an old newsgroup.

It's an attempt to get enough people to vote against the creation of
urcm. The OP appears to be nym-shift of one of the more disruptive (to
be polite) poster to urc.

If I've kept up with the RFD discussion cross posts to other groups are
not going to be generally allowed

I mean, let's just forget altogether, shall we, for a
moment, that there are precious few stand-alone
moderated groups on USENET that don't have an
unmoderated sibling (news:sci.virtual-worlds was
one exception to this rule of thumb).

Similarly, why would there be any need to remove
news:uk.rec.cycling from the newsrc? All that is
being mooted is the foundation of a new, moderated
group.

There is no intention to remove urc anyway

If there's a reason for a moderated group, and people
are willing to do the moderation properly, I see no
reason why there shouldn't be one, configurators.

Not that it's come to a vote yet so far as I know.

no, waiting for the CFV

for clarification: despite the intention to appear so *- it was not
from me.

It was from someone trying to blacken my name - I cannot guess who -
someone despicable.

No one needs to try to blacken your name. You do a fantastic job of
that yourself already

Mike P