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

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:04:26 +0100,
Clive George wrote:
"Tim Woodall" wrote in message
e.uk...

This entire sub-discussion has been completely pointless. Chiark will
not accept mail from me (at least it wouldn't last time I tried because
it rejects all mail from dialup ips[2] and I deliver direct to MX) but I
should still be able to post to this moderated group. Chiark will not
even be able to tell what IP my email has come from other than parsing
the received headers)

I think it's been relevant - the public moderator's email address needs to
be accessible to all, IanJ needs to do the appropriate configuration to
allow that, and say that he has done so.

IanJ - are you going to make that happen?

Ian _CAN'T_ do that. You need to talk to the owners of usenet.org.uk, in
particular the people responsible for the email configuration on
mail-in-1.lb.gradwell.net. and mail-in-2.lb.gradwell.net.

is not accessible to me:

$ telnet mail-in-2.lb.gradwell.net. 25
Trying 79.135.125.75...
Connected to mail-in-2.lb.gradwell.net.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 v-mail-in-5.gradwell.net ESMTP ready (Gradwell gwh-smtpd 1.290) Fri,
10 Jul 2009 12:23:15 +0100
HELO woodall.me.uk
250 v-mail-in-5.gradwell.net Hello
cpc2-watf1-0-0-cust362.watf.cable.ntl.com ([82.0.173.107])
MAIL
250 Sender ok
rcpt
550 Recipient blocked ... 82.0.173.107 is listed in zen.spamhaus.org

(I can post to the group because I go via moderators.isc.org but the
request address doesn't exist in that domain)

I agree that the public moderator's email address needs to be accessible
to all. But it won't be. And unless Ian has magic powers (or happens to
be one of the people responsible for gradwell) then he cannot do anything
at all about it. Yes, it's wrong but you're addressing your complaints
to the wrong people. (The right people might read unnc but I don't
know.)

Tim.

$ telnet moderators.switch.ch. 25
Trying 130.59.10.10...
Connected to moderators.switch.ch.
Escape character is '^]'.
220 pinatubo.switch.ch ESMTP Exim 4.63 Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:27:31 +0200
HELO woodall.me.uk
250 pinatubo.switch.ch Hello woodall.me.uk [82.0.173.107]
MAIL
250 OK
rcpt
250 Accepted

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://www.woodall.me.uk/

In uk.rec.cycling Percy Picacity twisted the electrons to say:
Seems an irritating waste of time to me - I assumed you must be in
favour of compulsion, otherwise why waste your energy and bore
people by talking about helmets all the time?

She *might* not be in favour of compulsion through the front door (ie:
direct legislation) but I think she's totally in favour of doing it by
the back door by such methods as no/lower compensation and no/less health
care for accident victims not wearing a helmet ...

To be fair, she doesn't talk about helmets *all* the time. She started
on cyclelanes, moved onto helmets and now has road positioning as her
current hobby-horse (well, when she's not complaining that she might not
be able to post whatever she likes to urcm). AFAIK, she's never posted
anything to indicate she actually ever rides a bike herself ... ?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

jms wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:52:04 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

Nuxx Bar wrote:
So advocating legal restrictions on cyclists, for reasons of safety,
is "trolling" on a cycling newsgroup. That's what you're saying,
right? Does that mean that advocating safety-related legal
restrictions on motorists is "trolling" on a motoring newsgroup/forum
(especially when the person doing it knows that the restrictions don't
actually improve safety and is just pretending to think that for
underhand reasons)?

Yes, it might very well mean that. I think that you are actually
beginning to grasp what a troll actually is.

So advocating legal restrictions on cyclists, for reasons of safety,
on a cycling newsgroup is "trolling".

Oh, pay attention, that's not quite what I wrote.

To the question
/"Does that mean that advocating safety-related legal restrictions on
motorists is "trolling" on a motoring newsgroup/forum(especially when
the person doing it knows that the restrictions don't actually improve
safety and is just pretending to think that for
underhand reasons)?"/

My answer is
"Yes, it might very well mean that. I think that you are actually
beginning to grasp what a troll actually is."


To go further, Nuxx's assertion;
/"So advocating legal restrictions on cyclists, for reasons of safety,
is "trolling" on a cycling newsgroup. That's what you're saying, right?" /
Is not right. I would say that it could be trolling, or it could be an
innocent expression of a sincerely held opinion in the hope of
furthering an interesting debate. The judgement of whether this is an
attempted troll will have to be made taking into account the history of
the poster and the discussion.

--
Roger Thorpe

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

On Jul 10, 10:43*am, Simon Brooke wrote:
I can't understand how someone who is so anti-cycle helmets encourages
his kids to wear them.

I can. [snip reasons]

well, yes, but there are also two fatal flaws in the question: first,
the assertion that I encourage my children to wear helmets is based on
my views in 2004 - this has been made clear numerous times but one
poster insists on representing it as if it were my current view;
second, I am not anti-helmet, I am opposed to compulsionist
propaganda. This, too, has been made clear numerous times but also,
for reasons I think we all find slightly less surprising than
revelations pertaining to the Catholicism of His Holiness, ignored.

So actually it's a strawman anyway.
--
Guy

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:51:27 +0100, jms wrote:

I can't understand how someone who is so anti-cycle helmets encourages
his kids to wear them.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I'm not sure where
to start.

Assuming you're banging on about Guy again:

1: it hasn't been shown that he is anti-helmet

2: there is no evidence at all that he encourages his kids to wear
them

3: even if he is and he does, there are plenty of coherent reasons to
be so.

For reference, my children have cycle helmets, because I was nagged
into buying them. I am entirely neutral about whether they wear
them. The oldest generally does wear hers, the youngest generally
doesn't wear hers. My wife is in favour of them wearing their helmets
when they ride to school, because otherwise she spends much time
responding to uninformed comment from other mothers.

I just wish to learn.

I think that is very unlikely to be a true statement. If you actually
had such a desire, you would have learnt before now.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Matt B wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

Unfortunately it is not
possible to discuss the origins of compulsory use of cycle facilities
without Godwinating the discussion.

Why? Weren't the CTC discussing demanding them as early as the mid
1920s? Long before the period in history that you allude to.


True enough, he wasn't the Riech Chancellor for a while.
Hadn't done the P.R. work yet.

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

In article ,
Tim Woodall wrote:
is not accessible to me:
Ian [can't fix] that.

What I can do is provide an alternative email address that you will be
able to use to reach the moderators; for example by providing a
separate non-spamfiltered address on my system.

If we find that you need to have a more extended conversation with the
moderators I can also make a specific exemption to the spamfiltering
for you, or to give you a secret spamfilter-bypassing version of the
moderators' panel address.

Finally: if the moderation panel want the spamfiltering turned off on
the urcm-moderators@chiark address, then you will be email that
address without trouble (just as you should be able to currently email
postmaster@chiark without trouble). I think this would be a bad idea,
but it's a decision for the panel as a whole.

Indeed, most of these are impossible for .
But I don't expect us to use or publish that address anywhere.

There is no reason why the moderators' contact address needs to be the
formulaic address (even
uk.net.news.announce does not advertise an address of that form);
indeed there is no reason it needs to be @usenet.org.uk. The
moderation panel hasn't decided yet what we will do but my advice is
that the contact address we should publish should be an address
@chiark whose spamfiltering setup we can actually control, and whose
logs we can read to find out what is happening to missing messages.

The article submission path has to go via usenet.org.uk for technical
reasons (ie, because that's the way posting to moderated groups works)
and is an entirely different matter. Those messages will bypass
chiark's spamfilter precisely because as Tim says it is broken to
bounce forwarded emails - and also because there is usually no useful
bounce path so anything rejected would just disappear.

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

On 10 Jul 2009 12:20:13 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
wrote:

In article ,
Clive George wrote:
I think it's been relevant - the public moderator's email address needs to
be accessible to all, IanJ needs to do the appropriate configuration to
allow that, and say that he has done so.

Personally I don't think it's necessary that the same address has to
be useable for everyone. I think it would be fine to have a separate
contact address for people having difficulty.

Note that keeping the moderators' contact address unfiltered would in
practice mean that the moderators must manually wade through the
incoming spam.

Rubbish - perhaps the filtering software is too diligent - unfit for
purpose.

If people have sensible spam filters I believe that they will filter
correctly 95% plus.

That is certainly what I get (at least)

You are just being pig-headed and not wanting to make your system
conform to other major systems ( eg) Microsoft.

Yours is the only system have I ever seen where messages are
effectively ignored because they come from a Microsoft system.

You need to get up to date, take you head out of the sand(or where
ever else it may be) and get your act together.

You need to decide what you are going to do to make your system work.


Chiark is obviously not to be trusted to do the job required of it.

Your whole attitude to this serious matter is another demonstration
that you are not fit to run he system

Get in to the real world - change chiark - the problem disappears.

Much too easy for you?




--

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:37:11 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall
wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:04:26 +0100,
Clive George wrote:
"Tim Woodall" wrote in message
e.uk...

This entire sub-discussion has been completely pointless. Chiark will
not accept mail from me (at least it wouldn't last time I tried because
it rejects all mail from dialup ips[2] and I deliver direct to MX) but I
should still be able to post to this moderated group. Chiark will not
even be able to tell what IP my email has come from other than parsing
the received headers)

I think it's been relevant - the public moderator's email address needs to
be accessible to all, IanJ needs to do the appropriate configuration to
allow that, and say that he has done so.

IanJ - are you going to make that happen?

Ian _CAN'T_ do that. You need to talk to the owners of usenet.org.uk, in
particular the people responsible for the email configuration on
mail-in-1.lb.gradwell.net. and mail-in-2.lb.gradwell.net.


I await the fireworks.



--

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:41:38 +0000 (UTC), Alistair Gunn
wrote:

In uk.rec.cycling Percy Picacity twisted the electrons to say:
Seems an irritating waste of time to me - I assumed you must be in
favour of compulsion, otherwise why waste your energy and bore
people by talking about helmets all the time?

She *might* not be in favour of compulsion through the front door (ie:
direct legislation) but I think she's totally in favour of doing it by
the back door by such methods as no/lower compensation and no/less health
care for accident victims not wearing a helmet ...

To be fair, she doesn't talk about helmets *all* the time. She started
on cyclelanes, moved onto helmets and now has road positioning as her
current hobby-horse (well, when she's not complaining that she might not
be able to post whatever she likes to urcm). AFAIK, she's never posted
anything to indicate she actually ever rides a bike herself ... ?

awfully sorry old bean - I didn't realise that you had to be a current
bike-rider to discuss cycling.

Perhaps you'd like that in the charter for the censored group?

By the way - what do you think of the safety record for cyclists cf
that of pedestrians:

Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:

Killed or seriously injured:
Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians : 384

All casualties:
Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795

Which do you think is the most dangerous?


(Oh - I didn't make them up - they're from the DfT)


--

Vote NO to the proposed group uk.rec.cycling.moderated aka uk.rec.cycling.censored