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

Steve Firth wrote:
But whatever the complicating factors, the root cause was one cyclist
choosing to ignore a red light.

This will *definitely* result in a pointless argument about 'root cause'
(as if there were only one).
Where would you prefer that discussion to be?


--
Roger Thorpe

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

"jms" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jun 2009 20:24:04 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:

On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Tom Crispin wrote:

In answer to a simple question:
"Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
Message-ID:
Several chose not to answer - that is fine: it was an unnecessary
request.

However, one chose to be deliberately unhelpful, suggesting a full
Google Groups search on their posting history to trawl for the answer.
Message-ID:

No, that answer is more helpful than silence.

The simple question was:
"Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
Why should anyone need to own a bike to post on the new group? My
understanding is that they do not.

An interest the promotion of safe cycling would (ought?) to be sufficient.

--
Ian

On Jun 26, 12:40*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:

The evidence is also that Wm Tarr is a serial ****wit who thinks he's a
terribly clever person.

I'm assuming the usual Usenet definition of ****wit, being "person who
disagrees with me".
--
Guy

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

On Jun 26, 12:40 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:

The evidence is also that Wm Tarr is a serial ****wit who thinks he's a
terribly clever person.

I'm assuming the usual Usenet definition of ****wit, being "person who
disagrees with me".

You will always assume anything that fits with your prejudices. It must
be teribbly difficult for you to ride a bicycle while wearing blinkers.

Roger Thorpe wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
But whatever the complicating factors, the root cause was one cyclist
choosing to ignore a red light.

This will *definitely* result in a pointless argument about 'root cause'
(as if there were only one).
Where would you prefer that discussion to be?

Among youselves. I have no interest in being shouted down by braying
donkeys.

On Jun 26, 3:03*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:

I'm assuming the usual Usenet definition of ****wit, being "person who
disagrees with me".

You will always assume anything that fits with your prejudices. It must
be teribbly difficult for you to ride a bicycle while wearing blinkers.

Ah, the old "accuse everybody of your own worst faults" ploy. Off you
go, then.
--
Guy

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:19:57 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

The evidence is also that Wm Tarr is a serial ****wit who thinks he's a
terribly clever person.

I'm assuming the usual Usenet definition of ****wit, being "person who
disagrees with me".

Except, that's not the usual Usenet definition.

http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/...aq07-fwit.html

Geoff Berrow wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:19:57 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

The evidence is also that Wm Tarr is a serial ****wit who thinks he's a
terribly clever person.
I'm assuming the usual Usenet definition of ****wit, being "person who
disagrees with me".

Except, that's not the usual Usenet definition.

http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/...aq07-fwit.html
Bliney, it *is* that Dick Gaughan.

--
Roger Thorpe

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

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:31:02 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/...aq07-fwit.html
Bliney, it *is* that Dick Gaughan.


Yeah but he never phones, he never writes...

Geoff

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Ah, the old "accuse everybody of your own worst faults" ploy. Off you go,
then.

As I said, blinkers. You couldn't possibly ever be wrong could you?