Another URCM rejection

(I guess that these may be tedious to some - I will put "URCM
rejection" in the subject of any more which I post so that people may
filter and kill if they are not interested)

Chapman says:

Most injury collisions involving cyclists are the fault of a driver,

To which I reply :

That is a very sweeping statement - do you perhaps have some reference
to support that point of view?


The post is rejected with :

"We've done this, and last time it was Matt B who is at least
coherent"



I never receive an email notification of rejections - I think that
chiark must be broken. I have asked but none of the moderators has
the decency to answer the question.

Perhaps it is in the charter:

"All questions which are difficult to answer and which may show some
cyclists in a poor light, must be rejected. (Derogatory comments to
the poster may be made)



Come on Wm... you know what is needed.

On 19 Apr, 23:44, JMS wrote:
(I guess that these may be tedious to some *- I will put "URCM
rejection" in the subject of any more which I post so that people may
filter and kill if they are not interested)

Chapman says:

Most injury collisions involving cyclists are the fault of a driver,

To which I reply :

That is a very sweeping statement - do you perhaps have some reference
to support that point of view?

The post is rejected with :

"We've done this, and last time it was Matt B who is at least
coherent"

I never receive an email *notification of rejections - I think that
chiark must be broken. *I have asked but none of the moderators has
the decency to answer the question.

Perhaps it is in the charter:

"All questions which are difficult to answer and which may show some
cyclists in a poor light, must be rejected. *(Derogatory comments to
the poster may be made)

Come on Wm... * * *you know what is needed.

I honestly don't understand why you bother even trying to post there,
care to explain the attraction.

On 19/04/2010 23:44, JMS wrote:


(I guess that these may be tedious to some - I will put "URCM
rejection" in the subject of any more which I post so that people may
filter and kill if they are not interested)

Chapman says:

Most injury collisions involving cyclists are the fault of a driver,

To which I reply :

That is a very sweeping statement - do you perhaps have some reference
to support that point of view?


The post is rejected with :

"We've done this, and last time it was Matt B who is at least
coherent"



I never receive an email notification of rejections - I think that
chiark must be broken. I have asked but none of the moderators has
the decency to answer the question.

Perhaps it is in the charter:

"All questions which are difficult to answer and which may show some
cyclists in a poor light, must be rejected. (Derogatory comments to
the poster may be made)



Come on Wm... you know what is needed.


Yes we all know the mods are self-appointed, sad, need-a-life wannabes -
even the mods know themselves.
But, why do you even bother visiting URCM if you don't like their
censorship?

In any case, please desist from posting crap like this (URC) in this
decent, fucntional NG.

Regards,
Happi

Happi Monday wrote:
On 19/04/2010 23:44, JMS wrote:

Yes we all know the mods are self-appointed, sad, need-a-life wannabes -
even the mods know themselves.
But, why do you even bother visiting URCM if you don't like their
censorship?

And further, posting stuff that will certainly be rejected.

There's some complex masochistic/persecution complex
going on.

A psychologist would have a field day!

I hope "Judith" gets the help she needs.

BugBear

On 20 Apr, 09:25, Happi Monday wrote:
On 19/04/2010 23:44, JMS wrote:





(I guess that these may be tedious to some *- I will put "URCM
rejection" in the subject of any more which I post so that people may
filter and kill if they are not interested)

Chapman says:

Most injury collisions involving cyclists are the fault of a driver,

To which I reply :

That is a very sweeping statement - do you perhaps have some reference
to support that point of view?

The post is rejected with :

"We've done this, and last time it was Matt B who is at least
coherent"

I never receive an email *notification of rejections - I think that
chiark must be broken. *I have asked but none of the moderators has
the decency to answer the question.

Perhaps it is in the charter:

"All questions which are difficult to answer and which may show some
cyclists in a poor light, must be rejected. *(Derogatory comments to
the poster may be made)

Come on Wm... * * *you know what is needed.

Yes we all know the mods are self-appointed, sad, need-a-life wannabes -
even the mods know themselves.
But, why do you even bother visiting URCM if you don't like their
censorship?

In any case, please desist from posting crap like this (URC) in this
decent, fucntional NG.


"fucntional NG" - contracted form of "****ing factional NG"?

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On 19 Apr, 23:44, JMS wrote:
(I guess that these may be tedious to some *- I will put "URCM
rejection" in the subject of any more which I post so that people may
filter and kill if they are not interested)

Chapman says:

Most injury collisions involving cyclists are the fault of a driver,

To which I reply :

That is a very sweeping statement - do you perhaps have some reference
to support that point of view?

The post is rejected with :

"We've done this, and last time it was Matt B who is at least
coherent"

I never receive an email *notification of rejections - I think that
chiark must be broken. *I have asked but none of the moderators has
the decency to answer the question.

Perhaps it is in the charter:

"All questions which are difficult to answer and which may show some
cyclists in a poor light, must be rejected. *(Derogatory comments to
the poster may be made)

Come on Wm... * * *you know what is needed.

I honestly don't understand why you bother even trying to post there,
care to explain the attraction.


It is a moderated group which is open to everyone.

I am a cyclist.

Hence it is of interest to me.

Also somethings should not just be left as they are. Some of the
posters to that group are extremely arrogant as they are - it does not
hurt to correct their misguided views and opinions.

The fact that the moderators moderate in the way they do is their
problem - not mine; but it does needs sorting out.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:25:08 +0100, Happi Monday
wrote:

On 19/04/2010 23:44, JMS wrote:


(I guess that these may be tedious to some - I will put "URCM
rejection" in the subject of any more which I post so that people may
filter and kill if they are not interested)


snip




Yes we all know the mods are self-appointed, sad, need-a-life wannabes -
even the mods know themselves.
But, why do you even bother visiting URCM if you don't like their
censorship?

In any case, please desist from posting crap like this (URC) in this
decent, fucntional NG.

Regards,
Happi


Questions regarding cycling from URCM may be of interest to cyclists
in URC.

eg - the fact that the ****wit Chapman claims something to do with
cycling which is obviously not true.

Then rather than expect an answer - the request for him to validate
it is thrown out.

If you do not like what I post - then killfile either me or posts with
"URCM rejection" in the subject.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:41:42 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

Happi Monday wrote:
On 19/04/2010 23:44, JMS wrote:

Yes we all know the mods are self-appointed, sad, need-a-life wannabes -
even the mods know themselves.
But, why do you even bother visiting URCM if you don't like their
censorship?

And further, posting stuff that will certainly be rejected.



Sorry - I assume that you mean questioning something which the ****wit
Chapman has said will be rejected.

I had not seen that in the charter.


(What was your posting name prior to a couple of months ago - and why
did you change it?)


(Feel free to respond to posts of other people. You do not have to
hang on to my every word; but it is much appreciated - keep it up)

JMS wrote in
:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:25:08 +0100, Happi Monday
wrote:

On 19/04/2010 23:44, JMS wrote:


(I guess that these may be tedious to some - I will put "URCM
rejection" in the subject of any more which I post so that
people may filter and kill if they are not interested)


snip




Yes we all know the mods are self-appointed, sad, need-a-life
wannabes - even the mods know themselves.
But, why do you even bother visiting URCM if you don't like their
censorship?

In any case, please desist from posting crap like this (URC) in
this decent, fucntional NG.

Regards,
Happi


Questions regarding cycling from URCM may be of interest to
cyclists in URC.

eg - the fact that the ****wit Chapman claims something to do with
cycling which is obviously not true.

The fact that someone posted something which is not true on the
Internet is very unlikely to be of significant interest to anyone.


--
Percy Picacity

JMS wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:10:58 -0700 (PDT), NM
wrote:

On 19 Apr, 23:44, JMS wrote:
(I guess that these may be tedious to some *- I will put "URCM
rejection" in the subject of any more which I post so that
people may filter and kill if they are not interested)

Chapman says:

Most injury collisions involving cyclists are the fault of a
driver,

To which I reply :

That is a very sweeping statement - do you perhaps have some
reference to support that point of view?

The post is rejected with :

"We've done this, and last time it was Matt B who is at least
coherent"

I never receive an email *notification of rejections - I think
that chiark must be broken. *I have asked but none of the
moderators has the decency to answer the question.

Perhaps it is in the charter:

"All questions which are difficult to answer and which may show
some cyclists in a poor light, must be rejected. *(Derogatory
comments to the poster may be made)

Come on Wm... * * *you know what is needed.

I honestly don't understand why you bother even trying to post
there, care to explain the attraction.


It is a moderated group which is open to everyone.

I am a cyclist.

Hence it is of interest to me.

Also somethings should not just be left as they are. Some of the
posters to that group are extremely arrogant as they are - it does
not hurt to correct their misguided views and opinions.



The point of a discussion group is to discuss things. Correction of
misguided opinions is not in itself a very useful activity.
Especially if it causes distress to the corrector when it doesn't
work


--
Percy Picacity