2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated

Steve Firth wrote:

Guy even recommends against it when it's legal for heavens sake.
However, he does claim to understand why people, including children
may do it.

i.e. He condones it.
UNNC removed

So do I condone the actions of the junkie who stole my HiFi by
understanding why he felt that it was OK to do so?

--
Roger Thorpe

....you had the whole damn thing all wrong/
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 07:33:41 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
wrote:

What would be the point of that? *It's you they want to get rid of and
frankly I don't blame them.

If Judith posts sensible, well mannered, constructive and non-
repetitive on-topic posts to the new group I see no reason why they
should be moderated.


Don't be ridiculous. It's not going to happen.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:07:22 +0100
Keitht KeithT wrote:


I was thinking more on the lines of:
http://www.bossbi.com/bike/bmw/bmwbikes.php

This one is quite striking:
http://www.bike-trend.com/wp-content...9/05/q6sxt.jpg
It uses their motorcycle front suspension design, which is pretty
funky but not (I feel) particularly advantageous in this application.

Steve Firth wrote:
Tosspot wrote:

Because, and even for you it should be ****ing obvious that nearly all
car drivers think that nearly all cyclists are pavement riding, red
light jumping, lycra clad "****wits" was I believe the term;

I think that and I'm a pedestrian.

and most cyclists think that most car drivers are small dicked, homicidal
maniacs that should be locked up. This might colour peoples views, yours
certainly are, more so than mine imho. So that settles that then.

You're indulging in "invalidation", HTH.

Back on topic, I can't remember anyone on here condoning pavement
riding,

ISTR that in the past you, and others, denied that it even happens.
Indeed denying that any cyclist could possibly ever do anything ilegal
seems to be par for the course. I can't remember which of the regular
numpties it is that claims to have never seen a cyclist passing a red
light, but the claim has been made, and it's laughable.

No of course you can't remember because it didn't. No one in the UK who
is over say 15 years old, could have failed to witness a RLJ, I see them
more or less every day. It shouldn't happen, it does, for a variety of
reasons, some reasonable, some not.

Guy even recommends against it when it's legal for heavens sake.
However, he does claim to understand why people, including children
may do it.

i.e. He condones it.

No he doesn't. I might understand why someone grabbed you by the throat
and throttled the life out of you, but I don't condone it!

Steve Firth wrote:
Tosspot wrote:

Because, and even for you it should be ****ing obvious that nearly all
car drivers think that nearly all cyclists are pavement riding, red
light jumping, lycra clad "****wits" was I believe the term;

I think that and I'm a pedestrian.

and most cyclists think that most car drivers are small dicked, homicidal
maniacs that should be locked up. This might colour peoples views, yours
certainly are, more so than mine imho. So that settles that then.

You're indulging in "invalidation", HTH.

Back on topic, I can't remember anyone on here condoning pavement
riding,

ISTR that in the past you, and others, denied that it even happens.
Indeed denying that any cyclist could possibly ever do anything ilegal
seems to be par for the course. I can't remember which of the regular
numpties it is that claims to have never seen a cyclist passing a red
light, but the claim has been made, and it's laughable.

No of course you can't remember because it didn't. No one in the UK who
is over say 15 years old, could have failed to witness a RLJ, I see them
more or less every day. It shouldn't happen, it does, for a variety of
reasons, some reasonable, some not.

Guy even recommends against it when it's legal for heavens sake.
However, he does claim to understand why people, including children
may do it.

i.e. He condones it.

No he doesn't. I might understand why someone grabbed you by the throat
and throttled the life out of you, but I don't condone it!

Quoting Geoff Berrow :
There seems to be a lot of support for urcm, and very little
opposition. It may even qualify for fast track from what I've seen.

I think that depends on how much sock sorting you do with the six
objections from Judith and eighteen from nully. :-)
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!
Today is Olethros, Presuary - a weekend.

"Tosspot" wrote in message
...

No of course you can't remember because it didn't. No one in the UK who
is over say 15 years old, could have failed to witness a RLJ, I see them
more or less every day. It shouldn't happen, it does, for a variety of
reasons, some reasonable, some not.

Like having a cager on you tail who is going to jump the light anyway and if
you brake for the light, you run the risk of the cager making a ridiculously
close overtake (or just running into the back of you). As a matter of
course, I have started running red lights if there is a car close behind.
They usually follow through and jump the light as well.

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:01:42 +0100, Geoff Berrow
wrote:

If Judith posts sensible, well mannered, constructive and non-
repetitive on-topic posts to the new group I see no reason why they
should be moderated.

Don't be ridiculous. It's not going to happen.

That's down to judith not anybody else. I think the principle that
everybody gets a clean slate has already been established and as far
as I am aware it is not opposed by anyone. Obviously I agree as to
the likelihood of it happening, but as I say it's down to her.

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.

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:18:16
uk.net.news.config Pedt "\"@

The alternative is an RFD with a multi-part vote. This is a bad idea as
the number of options and votes to be cast depending on what happens
previously would lead to a humongously sized ballot paper if you are
voting on a) should the group be created; b) how are the moderators
elected if so; c) How many moderators for each of the options in b;
d..whatever) on the possible combinations. UKV could handle it but a
multi-thousand line CFV with x number of if...then...else...if...then
is very unlikely to be well received when posted.

"... and finally, at least four people are known to have collapsed while
reading a usenet article, the leader of the hoc has said 'it is quite
understandable, what you do is choose option a if you want ...' "

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:35:33
uk.net.news.config Roger Thorpe

Geoff Berrow wrote:

What would be the point of that? It's you they want to get rid of and
frankly I don't blame them.

That's the elephant in the room.

What I want to know is what happened to the gorillas

--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days