 |
|
 |
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:02:00 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On 23 Jun 2009 13:33:52 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
<...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Vote takers will need to keep your eye out for Lou Knee.
Guy Chapman has posted using this nym. at least a couple of times -
probably more.
--
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:47:09 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:30:39 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<...@spamcop.net
Ah yes - the old ones are the best.
I have plenty of evidence - which I can't post or discuss here - but
I will if *you* e-mail me.
(Oh - Hi Chris - I don't actually have any evidence but I think it
happened, and I think I know *who* did it - I pretend that I have
evidence in order to frighten him. Please keep this to yourself)
Whilst not wanting to post the evidence here - any chance of a pointer
as to what sort of "evidence" it may be?
You have actually previously accused someone of making the calls - so
I assume the evidence also shows who it was.
What did the police say when you contacted them?
There is a real danger that some people do not believe that you are
quite truthful - and there is just a very teeny, tiny, incy, wincey,
slim possibility that you have made this all up.
(I agree that this is not for the moderation issue - so I will set
follow- ups to urc)
--
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:49:55 +0100, chris French <...@familyfrench.co.uk
In message <...@live.co.ukSeems reasonable enough, the details of the issue are not relevant to
the RFD
<snip attempts to drag the issue up again
I disagree, I'm not interested in discussing the specifics of this issue
here, but it pertains to the inclusion or otherwise of reference to it
in the RFD, so followups to unnc reinstated
Like I said, it'll likely just be a distraction
--
Chris French
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:45:36 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@SPAMCOP.NET
On Jun 23, 12:49 am, chris French <...@familyfrench.co.ukwrote:
[in respect of my choosing not to share more details about crank
calls]
Indeed they are not. The fact of the crank calls is sideshow, the
real issue is abuse of urc for the pursuit of personal vendettas; that
abuse is plain and visible in the archives to all, there is no need
for me to share confidential information in order to underscore it.
It is not as if Nuxx's reputaiton could get any lower, after all.
--
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:36:21 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:45:36 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<...@SPAMCOP.NET
Personal vendettas?
I wonder if you are self-delusional?
Do you ever wonder why it is that *you* are the one to fall out with
so many people?
What do *you* think is the common factor?
Could it be that people do see you as despicable?
Any chance of answering the question?
--
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:45:59 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@SPAMCOP.NET
On Jun 22, 11:47 pm, jms <...@live.co.uk
The reasons for not making the evidence public are very easy to
understand. As you are a perpetrator rather than a victim of
harassment I do not expect you to understand this, but others clearly
do.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt. If you want to believe that your
chum Nuxx is not a deranged obsessive then you carry on, the rest of
us are not really in any doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:35:02 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar <...@hotmail.com
On Jun 23, 9:45 am, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<...@SPAMCOP.NET
Will you make the evidence available to me if I email you? As you are
accusing me I have a right to know what you are basing those
accusations upon. Maybe (not at all likely, but it's just possible)
there's a genuine misunderstanding on your part, and if so, perhaps
I'll be able to clear it up.
If you pretend not to have read this post then it will show that, just
as I suspect, you're making the whole thing up and you don't want to
be found out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:39:26 +0100, Judith M Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:45:59 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<...@SPAMCOP.NET
What do you mean "As you are a perpetrator rather than a victim of
harassment"
that's rather strong.
OH - I see - poor lickle Guy has been victimised as he?
Well perhaps poor lickle Guy should not be such a despicable fuckwit.
I bet you think that you were bullied at school as well don't you?
--
Guy Chapman nym-shifted to Lou Knee in order to call someone a shit.
He was caught out by the evidence of the IP address he used.
He has "implied" that it was not himself - but refuses to answer the simple question:
"Guy Chapman: Did you make the Lou Knee post?"
He is despicable - on this evidence you should not believe *anything* he says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 22 Jun 2009 23:54:53 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson <...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
In fact, a technical hitch seems to mean that this didn't happen with
this 2nd RFD.
So this paragraph is even more important.
(I have crossposted this article to both urc and unnc and left the
followups going to both groups, so if you want to post to both and
find it difficult to override your newsreader, you can follow up to
this message from me. Apologies for the inconvenience.)
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <...@chiark.greenend.org.ukThese opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:43:24 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On 22 Jun 2009 23:54:53 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson
<...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Ah yes - a "technical hitch" - happens all the time.
Common name : "cock-up"
Who will be responsible for the technical operation of the moderation
system?
Chapman had a technical hitch when he posted as Lou Knee and didn't
spot it was from an IP address he had used earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:44:15 +0100, "Colin Reed" <...@nospam-lineone.net
"jms" <...@4ax.com...
Well that was an only slightly better attempt than the deliberate
misrepresentation of this very post on two unrelated groups in a rather
pathetic attempt to garner "no" votes when the CFV arrives. As is more than
clear to most other people who read this, the above quote was to suggest
that actually the moderators would *not* do exactly what you suggest.
Anyway, I see no reason why this discussion should be dumbed down enough
just so the exceptionally vocal "me, me, listen to me, me me - look at me,
I'm being really clever" annoying little child in the corner can understand
it. As long as you actually quote the entire phrase, unlike your deliberate
lying on the other groups earlier, then most people will be able to
understand what was really being said, and your misunderstanding of it -
deliberate or just plain stupidity - will be clear for others to see.
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:43 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:16:35 -0700 (PDT), al Mossah
<...@hotmail.co.uk
Could you point out the common sense contributions made by Braggins -
I seem to have missed them.
There was the one where he altered what someone had said - and then
replied to it. "Forgery" is I think the term; hardly common sense.
I see there is the odd one who has professed to having qualifications
he hasn't actually got yet - that was hardly common-sense.
Clinch posts all through the day and is likely to get his wrists
slapped by the University sometime soon for doing so in University
time : hardly common sense.
URCM : by the clique - for the clique.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:08:08 +0100, Geoff Berrow <...@ckdog.co.uk
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:54:43 +0100, jms <...@live.co.ukwrote:
That's what a moderated group is. Did you have some idea it might be
otherwise?
If you want a group to be exactly how you want it to be, RFD one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:47:23 -0500, Andy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100,
Ian Jackson <...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
I notice that one individual has totally misrepresented the charter
and moderation policy and seems to have solicited for votes against
in a couple of unrelated groups (uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport).
--
Andy Leighton ="The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 24 Jun 2009 15:09:37 +0100 (BST), Ian Jackson <...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
In article <...@azaal.plus.comAndy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll take a look and consider whether to
follow up there.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <...@chiark.greenend.org.ukThese opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:26:46 +0100, "wafflycat" <...@btco*nnect.com
"Ian Jackson" <...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
It's the obvious troll stirring things up as usual by crosspoting to
uk.transport & uk.rec.driving.
Just fancy that... the predictable trolling and just proving exactly why a
moderated URC needs to be given the go-ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Ian Jackson <...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Several have already pointed out that the individual in question is
telling lies and have corrected the wilful misquoting of the discussion.
I for one loathe individuals who consider that their particular
hobby-horse gives them a licence to tell any lie necessary to achoeve
their aims. Whether those individuals are politicians or simply
net-loons is largely irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:40:27 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:47:23 -0500, Andy Leighton
<...@azaal.plus.com
Don't beat about the bush sunshine - that was me.
They are not unrelated newsgroups at all - you wish.
Indeed many here are so anti the transport people that they have
invented the name uk.tossposts - which as discussed will be allowed in
the moderated group.
I hope that the members of uk.rec.driving and uk.rec.transport take an
interest in what is happening here.
They will of course be eligible to vote - as members of many other
groups will be.
They will have experienced the views of the cycling clique before and
may well have relevant views to express in the moderated group.
However - they will not be able to do so - however relevant their
views to a particular issue - if the moderating clique do not even
*think* that they are cyclists.
This seems as good a reason for voting against the proposal as any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
jms <...@live.co.uk
So why did you lie about the moderation policy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:28:23 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
<...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
I object to:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------
"The following are on-topic and encouraged:
... general discussion amongst UK cyclists".
So anyone in the clique (who no one doubts are cyclists) can have a
general discussion on whatever they like.
It has previously been suggested that the group is not needed - but is
intended for a small number of people who constitute a clique.
This confirms that intention - and should not be allowed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
*All* adverts should be banned unless they are for events open to
all-comers.
Once again - you are potentially catering for the clique and business
friends
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
I strongly object to Alan Braggins as a moderator.
The only reason he has been chosen as a potential moderator is that
he is a personal friend of yours with whom you share your computing
faclities. It would be of interest to know if any of the other
proposed moderators have similar access - please can you comment.
In the previous discussion Braggins forged a post such that it
incorrectly attributed words to people they and the previous poster
had not said or quoted.
This is just one of many false accusation he has made over the months
to people.
He cannot be trusted as a moderator - he lacks integrity.
Given that similar objections to other proposed moderators have been
made : I propose that there is an election of the moderators.
If you want to retain the concept of the clique - continue with your
proposed clique list.
This will allay the fears of the many people that a clique is forming
a newsgroup for their own exclusive use.
The fact that you chose people who you knew, but who had made little
contribution to urc over the last few years, as moderators supports
that view.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
I agree with the idea of a block-list.
The way it is to be used must be fair and reasonable. Some of the
things previously said indicate that this may not be the intention -
and that things will happen behind closed doors.
This will be unacceptable
I understand that some of your proposed moderators have suggested that
the block list is set up immediately before the group gets off the
ground.
This stinks - and is another indication of the group being a clique
group.
Posts must not be censored based on what a poster has said in the
past - or has said elsewhere.
If people are to be put on a block list, then the process and result
should be totally transparent and published.
ie - if warning are made to an individual over their action, then
these should be in public. It will then be public knowledge of the
criteria being used to censor posts of an individual.
If people are added to a block list - then the precise reason, and the
duration of the block should be made public.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------
Other moderated groups provide statistics on delays to posts held in
the moderation process (eg uk.legal.moderated) - this requirement
should be a formal requirement of the proposed group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:42:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@spamcop.net
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:28:23 +0100, jms <...@live.co.ukwrote:
There are no SLAs for a voluntary function. No such statistics are
necessary.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:30:24 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 22:42:27 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<...@spamcop.net
No one mentioned an SLA - that is not what is needed
It is fully understood that the moderators will be doing it in their
own time and will be doing their best to turn things round as
reasonably possible; and that is all that they should do.
However - people need to be able to see whether posts by certain
individuals are being "delayed".
It would of course immediately dispel any accusations of such
impropriety; I am amazed that you are against it knowing your own
personal crusade for honesty and truthfulness.
Your disagreement of course supports the view that the moderated group
is for the benefit of the clique - some people will be unwelcome - and
some would do whatever they could to deter them posting.
Full transparency in the moderation policy and the group is needed -
do you not agree?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:32:24 +0100, chris French <...@familyfrench.co.uk
In message <...@live.co.uk
I don't think that is the intention (I think you need to read it in
context of the charter), but I think that yes the line could be
construed as such I suppose.
How about "general discussion related to cycling among UK cyclists"
However, I do not agree with the reason for your objection
This was discussed as a possibility by various posters in the first RFD
discussions. My impression was that this would not be the approach
taken, but we can see what discussion ensues here.
Whilst I'm all for providing such information if practicable, I do not
think that making it a requirement is appropriate.
--
Chris French
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:10:21 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:32:24 +0100, chris French
<...@familyfrench.co.uk
<snip
I for one think that there must be as much transparency in the
moderation policy as possible.
Some people have genuine misgivings on how things will be done - so
anything which shows fairness is to be recommended.
If things are not done openly and fairly and there seems to be some
sort of censorship the group may attract all sorts of disruptive
people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:51:52 -0700 (PDT), RudiL <...@gmail.com
On 23 June, 00:10, jms <...@live.co.uk
Yes of course the people who have caused the need to have a moderated
group feel misgivings about a moderated group.
Rudi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:13:05 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:51:52 -0700 (PDT), RudiL <...@gmail.comwrote:
<snip
Are you saying Chapman is not in favour of the moderated group?
Odd - I thought that he was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
On 22 June, 22:28, jms <...@live.co.uk
Are you then of the opinion that discussion in uk.rec.sheds should be
strictly limited to structural details of sloping-roofed buildings, or
that uk.singles should discuss only seven-inch vinyl records? Any
Usenet group is a conversation, among people who often become friends;
it's natural that sometimes they will discuss things which are not
strictly on topic. A cyclist is anyone who cycles - which means a very
substantial proportion of the UK population. No-one can describe that
as a 'clique'.
In brief summary to the rest of your comments, there is no suggestion
that uk.rec.cycling be removed. It will continue to exist, and you can
continue to use it exactly as you do now. If that does not satisfy
you, there are several thousand other troll fests^W^Wusenet groups for
you to partake in. The creation of a new group hurts no-one who does
not choose to take part in it, and no-one who is prepared to engage in
it constructively. To object to such a group on the broad grounds that
you have is to make clear that your true objection is to action to
reduce trolling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 02:04:12 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@SPAMCOP.NET
On Jun 23, 9:17 am, Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
Precisely. Nobody is forcing anyone to subscribe or post to the
proposed group, the RFC is a response to a clear demand expressed by a
number of people for a group in which discussion is not constantly
disrupted by off-topic rants, personal attacks, vendettas and the
pursuit of grudges.
The stated opposition does not address the RFC in any meaningful way -
we are already well aware that the two individuals most clearly
identified with the trolling problem in urc are unhappy about the idea
of a group from which they clearly feel they will be excluded, but
that has already been addressed directly in the discussion: everybody
gets a clean slate, nobody will be blacklisted unless they violate the
moderation policy or charter. If these individuals whose abuse of urc
has caused the moderated group to be proposed, can abide by the
charter and moderation policy, then their posts will be passed. If
they can't, they won't.
If their opposition is based on the potential for blacklisting for
repeated violations of charter or moderation policy, then there is a
really simple solution: don't do that. There is a limit to the amount
of junk that volunteer mods should have to wade through and use of
blacklists is perfectly normal for any moderated newsgroup. In fact
the proposed moderation policy is a good deal more forgiving than most
moderated online forums and looks to me to be no more onerous or
restrictive than any other moderated group in the uk.* hierarchy.
--
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:35:37 +0100, Adam Funk <...@ducksburg.com
Good arguments. I agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:15:29 -0700 (PDT), James <...@gmail.com
On Jun 23, 8:35 pm, Adam Funk <...@ducksburg.com
TBH I think it's a bit problematic to explicitly invite any and all
"General discussion amongst UK cyclists" - on the face of it it says
anything is on-topic so long as the poster rides a bike.
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:45:21 +0100, "wafflycat" <...@btco*nnect.com
"Simon Brooke" <...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Very well said that man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:39:50 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:17:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
<...@googlemail.com
I think that you will find that both uk.sheds and uk.singles are
populated by social misfits; they are hardly representative of society
at large. Many from urc would be at home
Do you frequent either? - I understand that Chapman does.
I think you will find that the cycle fascists who frequent urc are
atypical of the UK cycling community - and hopefully represent a very
tiny portion of them
I think you fill find that the need to do so will disappear,
I am more than willing to engage in the new group constructively.
I wonder if I will be given to a chance.
I do hope so.
Oh really.
If you think that creation of a new group will stop who you call
"trolls" then I suggest that you think again.
I think you will find that if certain people conduct themselves as
they have done so to date - and I am not referring to those *you* call
trolls, that the new group will most likely turn to rat-shit in the
same way that this one nearly did.
PS How long have you known Jackson? I see that you are one of his
cronies? Cambridge perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
In article <...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com
That's not necessarily strictly true: if posters give up on the unmoderated
group in favour of the moderated one, then those who prefer an unmoderated
discussion will have lost some of their audience, and they have a reduced
change of useful answer to questions, or less debate stimulated.
Obviously I personally think the potential benefits of a moderated group
curreently outweigh the disadvantages, but I wouldn't say that someone who
feels otherwise has no possible cause for concern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:06:23 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On 23 Jun 2009 22:42:52 +0100 (BST), arm...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
In the light of specific criticism (the "forgery" and "use Google")
and other objections about you, do you think you will be an
appropriate moderator?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:14:19 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:08:49 +0100, Tosspot <...@esa.intwrote:
Well thank you "Tosspot" - is that synonymous with "wanker"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:36:35 -0700 (PDT), James <...@gmail.com
On Jun 23, 9:09 am, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)ukwrote:
Me too - I don't have anything significant to add or debate, but
wouldn't want a lack of posting to be taken as a lack of support.
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:52:53 +0100, "Colin Nelson" <...@ntlworld.com
Same here (and thanks to Ian for his efforts).
--
Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:27:18 +0100, Chris Gerhard <...@thegerhards.com
And me.
--chris
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:39:55 +0100, David Hansen <...@spidacom.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:27:18 +0100 someone who may be Chris Gerhard
<...@thegerhards.com
Me too.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:35:25 +0100, Mark <...@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:39:55 +0100, David Hansen
<...@spidacom.co.uk
+1
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:02:10 +0100, geomannie <...@downie#n0sapm#.co.uk
In message <...@spidacom.co.ukCount me in too.
--
geomannie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:31:31 +0100, "Nigel Cliffe" <...@2mm.org.uk
One more supporting creation of the group. (I am listed on the proposed
moderation panel).
- Nigel
--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:08:43 +0100, Roger Thorpe <...@warwick.ac.uk
Since I can't think of an original way to express it:
Me too.
--
Roger Thorpe
She said her stereo was four-way, and I'd just love it in her room.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:17:23 -0700 (PDT), bod43 <...@hotmail.co.uk
On 23 June, 12:08, Roger Thorpe <...@warwick.ac.uk
Me too, too.
I support the creation of the moderated group ukrcm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:26:52 +0100, "Jeremy Parker" <...@compuserve.com
I support creation too.
Add my thanks, too for those volunteering to be part of the panel,
and to those who have put in the work to date on setting up the group
Jeremy Parker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 23 Jun 2009 14:39:10 +0100 (BST), Clare Boothby <...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
In article <...@v23g2000pro.googlegroups.comJames <...@gmail.com
+1
I would subscribe to this group; I anticipate its much improved
signal-to-noise ratio will make it readable by occasional visitors
in the way that the urc trollpit is not.
Clare
--
clar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk grass grass grass grass grass grass g
grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass pheasant grass grass gra
ass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass grass gr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:49:24 +0100, Mike Clark <...@cam.ac.uk
In message <...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk Clare Boothby <...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
+1
My queries from the 1st RFD have been answered and the continuing troll
wrestling that also infected that discussion has now persuaded me that a
moderated group is worth trialing.
Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
" ` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:39:38 -0700 (PDT), Mike <...@yahoo.co.uk
On 23 June, 15:49, Mike Clark <...@cam.ac.uk
I also support the creation of the group.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:01:25 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:49:24 +0100, Mike Clark <...@cam.ac.ukwrote:
I see you are part of the Cambridge clique.
Were you asked if you wanted to be a moderator?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:03:38 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On 23 Jun 2009 14:39:10 +0100 (BST), Clare Boothby
<...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Oh - hello Claire.
I see you use "greenend.org.uk"
Were you asked if you wanted to be a moderator?
Were you encouraged to come along ready for the vote?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:45:51 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst <...@systemeD.net
James <...@gmail.com
+1.
As it's reasonably well attested that two of the initial proposed
moderators (Messrs Jackson and Damerell) have absolutely no time for
me, and vice versa, I would also submit this as evidence against any
of this "clique" nonsense. ;)
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:34:21 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:45:51 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst
<...@systemeD.net
Sorry - the following is not a definition of clique:
"Someone who has no time for Richard Fairhurst"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:50:18 +0100, Judith M Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:42:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<...@spamcop.net
Not yet.
Why would the clique have any reservations about the proposal?
By the clique for the clique.
I am trying to bring some sensible and open balance.
It would be terrible if the population at large thought that the whole
issue was some sort of stitch up.
PS - I can see that comments like your above "invisible friends" are
the sort which have forced the requirement for the moderated group; I
don't think there is any place for them in the discussion.
Please try and keep things civil and sensible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:36:13 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@SPAMCOP.NET
On Jun 23, 11:50 am, Judith M Smith <...@live.co.uk
Ah, so a meaningless definition of "clique", then. Everybody but you
and Nuxx agrees, therefore this is prima facie evidence that you and
Nuxx are not the problem? I think not.
I think that about the only thing all of urc agrees about is that the
vituperative crap form you and Nuxx is a problem. This is quite
remarkable unanimity if you look at the history of debates on spokes,
wind resistance, helmets or anything else relevant to cycling.
--
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:58:47 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:36:13 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<...@SPAMCOP.NET
Have you noticed the number of people commenting on your inability to
ignore posts which you disagree with as being one of the major needs
for the moderated group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:37:21 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:58:08 +0100, Pedt <"\"@
@\"...@user-unknown.mx2.org.uk
In which case a resounding no vote is needed.
The need for the creation of the proposed group in this case is quite
different from the needs I have seen before.
What we have here is a very small group of people wanting to set up a
"public" group for their almost exclusive use.
You may have seen this with the suggestions that there is a block list
produced before the group has been formed.
I have never seen such suggestions before.
There are always two sides to every argument - but what we see here is
the proposed censorship of some views which do not fit in with the
views of the clique.
People object to some of the things which I have said and done - I
have no problem with that.
However - when the same sorts of things and actions are taken by
others - then there is not so much as a comment.
"Statistics" are presented by some which are patently absurd.
I query them and state the correct figures - then I am called a troll.
You will not be allowed to state a particular view in the proposed
group.
This is censorship.
How come there are people in the proposed moderation list who have
hardly ever posted in urc in the past:
Friends of the proposer perhaps.
By the clique for the clique.
I am sorry - but "it is too difficult" is not the answer to why not
elect the moderators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:43:09 -0700 (PDT), RudiL <...@gmail.com
On 24 June, 17:37, jms <...@live.co.uk
Because that is not how moderated groups are usually set up. You can
effectively elect them all by voting yes to the proposal, or elect
none by voting no.
Rudi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:45:39 +0100, Roger Thorpe <...@warwick.ac.uk
It might have been me that wondered aloud whether we would have a block
list from the start. I think that the conclusion we all came to was that
this was not just.
You have criticised the list of proposed moderators many times. Since
you feel so strongly about this could you take the trouble to find out
who volunteered or was proposed but is not on the list?
--
Roger Thorpe
...you had the whole damn thing all wrong/
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:22:26 +0100, Tom Crispin <...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:45:43 +0100, Ian Jackson
<...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Follow-ups have not been set to urc and unnc. urc regulars who do not
subscribe to unnc are being excluded from this discussion unless the
crosspost is put in manually (as I have).
[snip]
I refer to:
Message-ID: <...@corncockle-nntp.csv.warwick.ac.ukWould this post be allowed or moderated in urcm?
If it would be allowed, I suggest the following wording:
This group is for the discussion of all matters, especially those
matters relating to cycling and the UK. Recreational cycling, cycling
for transport, racing, and other forms of cycling are all on-topic.
[snip]
Not all the above have been regular and frequent posters over the past
year. The selection process was neither transparent or democratic.
In answer to a simple question:
"Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
Message-ID: <...@4ax.comSeveral 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: <...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
A simple answer, a reply stating that he did not consider that
information to be necessary, or simply ignoring the post would all
have been appropriate responses. The response given tells a lot about
the person and I do not consider him appropriate as moderator. This
puts me in the somewhat uncomfortable position of agreeing with
Judith.
I would prefer to see a democratic process for the selection of
moderators, or, if this is not possible for the new group to be
formed, a timescale and process put in place for a future democratic
process for the selection of moderators.
[snip]
In its present form I am unlikely to support the new group. However,
I admire and appreciate the work Ian Jackson has put in so far to
right the ills of urc. The creation of urcm is likely to be the death
of urc, and if not its death, urc's character will be irreversibly
changed. urcm will never be like urc of old - not while it is a
moderated group.
Civil and useful discourse is still possible in urc. A selection is
referenced below:
Message-ID:
<...@l2g2000vba.googlegroups.comMessage-ID:
<...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.comMessage-ID: <...@4ax.com(Went slightly off track)
Message-ID: <...@4ax.com(One forged reply)
Message-ID: <...@newsfe13.ams2Message-ID: <...@downie#n0sapm#.co.ukMessage-ID: <...@pipex.net
While in theory a moderated group would not prevent such discussion,
in practise it may.
New posters may be put off by moderation.
Regular posters may be put off by moderation.
Posters may think twice about starting topic drift, humour or banter.
Therefore, to support a moderated group I have to be convinced that
the new group is likely to be better than the group which is about to
have its character changed.
1. Several of the proposed moderators have not been regular posters to
urc over the past year.
2. One of the proposed moderators has been deliberately unhelpful.
3. All the proposed moderators have been selected by a single person,
not through a democratic and representative process.
While not alone a sufficient reason to oppose the new group, I have a
fear that the new group will form into more of a clique than the
current group, and it would be better served by a mailing list.
Unless something is done to rectify one or more of the points above I
will not support this group's creation, and urge others to consider
the same questions I have asked of myself.
Diversity, not conformity, is a strength.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:05:14 +0100, chris French <...@familyfrench.co.uk
In message <...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
I don't think that really matters, all are long time regulars of urc.
As has been pointed out in other replies to the thread (by Pedt I
think), there are various issues with moderator voting.
Well, hopefully it will be more like the urc of old than the current urc
though. Which seems more pertinent.
<snip
It is, but not enough IMO to counter the crap. urc feels like somewhere
to be endured nowadays rather than enjoyed.
People are being put off urc as it is.
Strikes me that urc as is doesn't provide a very high bar here.
I agree.
--
Chris French
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:19:04 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:05:14 +0100, chris French
<...@familyfrench.co.uk
There are no "issues" - other than pretending it is too difficult and
a lack of will
much too difficult to do something fairly and democratic - just chose
a bunch of mates from the clique
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
In article <...@4ax.com
I'm sorry you feel that way. My answer at the time was hurried - I
thought that the information was unnecessary and not directly relevent
to uk.net.news.config, but that it was available for those who really
cared (and that the fact that my posting history covered it was
relevent).
Most of my cycling is commuting, either a few miles on a folding bike
from a Park and Ride car park, or a longer distance on a road bike
(Raleigh Vitesse), a hybrid (GT Arette) I originally bought as a tow
bike for a Cycle Design Tag-a-long (since sold, as was a Pashley U+2),
or an Orange (model unknown) originally bought at a police cycle auction
as a spare bike to keep at work while commuting by train (I didn't have
the folder (Dawes Kingpin) then). More recently, I bought a Dawes XC
for use on off-road family cycle rides.
The Arrete is currently (and has been for some time) part way through
having an electric assist kit fitted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:44:34 +0100, Judith M Smith <...@live.co.uk
On 23 Jun 2009 22:26:23 +0100 (BST), arm...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
Perhaps you could tell us (as a proposed moderator ) ..... what should
happen if someone was caught forging a post - eg altering the names of
people in a post made by someone else?
Should they be block-listed?
Are they suitable people to be posting in the moderated group?
Would they be suitable as a moderator?
Do you expect moderators to be able to justify their actions and
answer relevant questions when asked?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On 23 Jun 2009 20:24:04 GMT, Ian Smith <...@astounding.org.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Tom Crispin <
No, that answer is more helpful than silence. This seems to reflect
your stated opinion on answering the helmets questions - you seem to
maintain that it would be better to have a decisive answer than an
accurate answer.
Here, you seem to be saying an answer that sets out a method of
finding all you want with full nuance and elaboration is unhelpful.
Apparently, you'd prefer a decisive simplification, even if it's an
over-simplification.
As I've said before, I'd rather have the truth, even if it's messy and
unclear, than a tidily packaged soundbite.
You basically can't have a democratic process. There are no
democratic moderated groups - at best, you get to influence the
initial choice of dictator. (Possibly, I overstate it a bit, but in
practice I think not much.)
Further, adding a detailed and complex election process will simply
encourage amateur lawyering nit-pickery from the trolls. I don't
believe it could be made to work as effectively as a benevolent
dictatorship.
New posters are more likely to be put off by the antics of the trolls
and wrestlers.
Regular posters HAVE been put off by the antics of the trolls and
wrestlers, and have voted with their feet.
Good, so they should. Everyone should think twice before posting.
Who, and to what definition?
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:57:02 -0700 (PDT), "Martin." <...@gmail.com
On 23 June, 23:24, Ian Smith <...@astounding.org.uk
I think to some extent they will be put off, but one of the real
problems at the moment is that new posters are likely to be suspected
of being a nym shift of a troll. e.g. the recent question on the
primary position, when I replied I did wonder if I was being trolled.
Regulat posters with valid email addresses, and good posting histories
will probably be put on a passlist, so won't have to worry about
delays.
I often write replies, and then hit cancel before sending. However I
think that a lot of topic drift and homour in the past has made URC
good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:27:59 -0500, Andy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:57:02 -0700 (PDT),
Martin. <...@gmail.com
A number of the moderators (ok one of them is me) have been around usenet
for a long time. We know what makes usenet special (when it works) and
we aren't trying to enforce some totally alien set of rules on to the
group. I fully expect that a certain amount of topic drift and homour
(whatever that is) will certainly continue to get posted to the
moderated group. Also people always have the option of putting an
obBike sentence/paragraph in their post.
--
Andy Leighton ="The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:48:35 +0100, Rob Morley <...@ntlworld.com
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
"Martin." <...@gmail.com
I increasingly find myself discarding replies, for a variety of
reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:06:09 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar <...@hotmail.com
On Jun 24, 4:48 am, Rob Morley <...@ntlworld.com
No great loss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:46:34 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On 23 Jun 2009 20:24:04 GMT, Ian Smith <...@astounding.org.uk
The simple question was:
"Can they each list their bikes and the type of cycling they do."
A very reasonable question - to which Braggins gave the arrogant
response - search Google.
Again he shows he is not fit to be a moderator - after his little
forgery.
What exactly is your relationship with him?
Why does he use *your* "greenend" facilities.
<snip
Rubbish - you want to have your hand-picked team.
There is no reason whatsoever why people should not be proposed and
then have a vote. A first past the post would be better than just
having the clique imposed.
Anyone who says "You basically can't have a democratic process." - is
frankly not fit to be a moderator themselves.
People are unable to filter out the views of those they disagree with
- therefore we must have a moderated group and we will be able to stop
people expressing those views where they are most likely to be read.
Here's a Braggins answer:
"Do a Google search"
I am surprised you don't know - what made you think that certain
people should be part of the moderation team?
Good mates - perhaps?
Same college?
Why not ask them what contribution *they* have made to urc over the
last two years.
Oh - I forgot - "You basically can't have a democratic process." and
anyway it's much too difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:00:22 +0100, Roger Thorpe <...@warwick.ac.uk
<snip
I am one of the proposed moderators. I think that almost everyone who
volunteered to be a moderator with the intention of making the group
work has been proposed as one in this RFD.
To be honest I don't think that a democratic election is practical and
(IMO) not necessary. I would expect to disagree with some of the other
moderators on a range of issues, but I don't expect there to be a heavy
hand used.
I think that we'll agree with that, but the situation at the moment
leads to polarisation, rather than a broad spectrum of opinions.
It's an experiment that we should try to make work.
--
Roger Thorpe
Standing on a golf course, dressed in PVC.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:49:32 +0100, Tosspot <...@esa.int
<snip
No, you run an experiment, look at the results, and they stand by
themselves. This venture may fail miserably, turn into a clique of
mutual masterbation, but I think it should be tried, no more, no less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:19:07 -0500, Andy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:00:22 +0100,
Roger Thorpe <...@warwick.ac.uk
Absolutely. I am heartened by the number of people I have seen support
the 2nd RFD who are not urc posters. If urcm is a place where they feel
more at home and they become regulars (OK a couple of big ifs) then
it can only help diversity. At the moment they are not being served by
urc as they either cannot or will not put up with the ranting and
raving.
--
Andy Leighton ="The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:47:58 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:19:07 -0500, Andy Leighton
<...@azaal.plus.com
Are you saying that they have an inability to kill-file and ignore
the posts which they do not want to read - or should those posts not
be made in the first place?
The censored group will enable the second of the two options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:52:31 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:00:22 +0100, Roger Thorpe
<...@warwick.ac.uk
Any chance of answering the other points/question which Tom raised?
They are quite difficult - same sort of magnitude in the "difficult
stakes" as having a vote on moderators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:15:23 +0100, Roger Thorpe <...@warwick.ac.uk
I think that I expressed my opinion on the issues reasonably well.
I suppose that if a significant number of people objected to the
proposed moderator list then some sort of election might be worthwhile,
but so far I have only seen two people expressing serious objections.
--
Roger Thorpe
...you had the whole damn thing all wrong/
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
On 23 June, 20:22, Tom Crispin <...@this.bit.freeuk.com.mungewrote:
I had not previously seen this message.
I'm not sure what relevance the bikes I have has to this discussion,
but, for the record, my 'working set' include a Klein Mantra, a
Cannondale Jekyll, a Dolan time trial bike and a Dolan cross bike.
This year in addition to being foreman of the routing crew for the
Girvan Race I have been safety officer for two criteriums. I time
trial a bit but don't race much these days. I take part in club runs
and occasional longer organised rides as well as pootling by myself
and commuting regularly to work by bicycle,
This isn't a perfect world, and votes on Usenet are exceedingly open
to abuse. If nothing is done to control trolling uk.rec.cycling will
gradually die as the noise-to-signal ratio becomes untenable; as has
happened to all the other Usenet groups I used to frequent. Ian
Jackson's proposal may work; personally I'm not enormously helpful,
but it could. If we don't try it, we had better accept the fact that
the era of Usenet is over, and that, sad though it is, the privatised
fiefdoms of the various web fora now provide a more civil and
constructive place for cyclists to share experience online.
I stopped posting two years ago. I stopped partly because the trolling
had become so excessive as to render the group a hostile,
argumentative and unpleasant place to hang out, and partly because,
like Guy, I find myself too easily tempted to wrestle with trolls - so
I perceived that I had become part of the problem.
We're none of us perfect. I've made a couple of posts myself in the
past fortnight which, looked at in the cool light of day, have been
decidedly unhelpful.
The benefit of a Usenet group is that it is easy for anyone to take
part. Those who have thus far been proposed as potential mods form a
pretty broad church. If we can achieve a light moderating touch I
believe we could achieve a group which is open, welcoming, good
humoured and well mannered. I agree it's not perfect but I believe
it's our last, best chance.
On that, I wholeheartedly agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:46:50 +0100, Molly Mockford <...@mollymockford.me.uk
At 14:12:13 on Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.comwrote in
<...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com
Nobody is expected to be perfect 100% of the time. So long as the
moderators are diligent and helpful *as moderators*, it really doesn't
affect the moderation of the group if they are sometimes neither in the
rest of their lives. The same applies to everyone else with
responsibilities in Usenet - Committee members, votetakers, mentors etc.
While it would be just lovely if we were all sweetness and light all the
time, that ain't the way that life works. So long as we fulfil our
responsibilities to the expected standard, that is all that anyone else
can require.
--
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee. If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:20:12 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
<...@googlemail.com
An inability to kill-file those you disagree with is a reason for
having a moderated group is it?
<snip
So you yourself have an inability to ignore people who have views
different from your own.
How do you think that you will translate that in to imposing a
moderation policy - will they be allowed to express those views you
find so abhorrent that you cannot ignore them?
Yes - it doesn't bode well for your ability to moderate fairly does
it.
Rubbish - a clique is not a broad church.
You were not "proposed" - you were handpicked by Ian Jackson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100, Tom Crispin <...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke
<...@googlemail.com
Perhaps urc will gradually die, just like the telegram, telex and
other forms of communication have gradually died. But I have shown
that there is still use in urc. What I fear is that the creation of
urcm will speed the death of both groups, not prolong them.
You are clearly not convinced that urcm will work. As someone who has
already abandoned urc you have nothing to lose if the new group does
fail - those of us who still enjoy urc do have something to lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:02:28 +0100, Brendan Halpin <...@ul.ie
On Tue, Jun 23 2009, Tom Crispin wrote (to Simon Brooke):
As you are probably aware, Simon was, for a very long time, one of the
dozen or so regular posters that made URC what it was -- interesting,
informative, mostly civilised if anarchic, and one of the last
worthwhile social usenet groups.
I would have been strongly against moderation, until quite recently, but
I now feel it is the only hope for the group.
Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-338562; Room F2-025 x 3147
mail...@ul.ie http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Tom Crispin <...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
some other newsgroups are doing fine others are not. URC is one of the
nots, for what it's worth, with my newsreader and it's kill all
followups URC is quite readable as most of the trolling/flaming is all
gone.
but i can see that there are large threads/sub threads all the time,
some groups manage to not to reply to them others do.
as to URCM is there a real danger of the group disapeapering? Yes this
said since people seem to lack the abilty to ignore trolls this may be
it's only chance.
roger
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
http://www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:56:58 +0100, jms <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100, Tom Crispin
<...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge<snip
There is an awful lot of sense and truth in what you say; but many in
urc have an aversion to that sort of thing - and of course will be
able to censor such things in a moderated group.
People were actually sent anonymous emails by the clique telling them
not to engage in any discussion with certain named people in urc.
They will now be able to censor all posts from those people with
opposing views.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:33:24 -0500, Andy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:24:56 +0100,
Tom Crispin <...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
You enjoy the judith, nuxx bar, nully posts? You enjoy Guy taunting
them from other threads? Doug? I certainly don't. The level of crap
reached the point of members leaving long ago. If it continues at the
current level or even increases I cannot see more than a handful of
sensible posters remaining. People will piss off to web-based fora,
and the blogosphere. As far as I am concerned a moderated group is
the last, best hope of a long-term functioning usenet group for UK
cyclists.
--
Andy Leighton ="The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:14:23 +0100, chris French <...@familyfrench.co.uk
In message <...@azaal.plus.com
Indeed, I gave up on urc a while back because of the crap level. I've
been back here a bit more recently, but it's no better, probably worse.
Basically it's not fun anymore. I will give up on it again I imagine,
possibly for good..
--
Chris French
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:49:41 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar <...@hotmail.com
On Jun 24, 12:14 am, chris French <...@familyfrench.co.ukwrote:
Amazing the way that even when they're talking about "last hopes", the
regulars *still* won't even discuss the possibility that those who are
more anti-motorist than pro-cyclist are the real problem in URC
(especially the ones who lie about being anti-motorist, not to mention
everything else), and getting rid of them would make things far more
pleasant, depoliticise the group, and also attract a lot more people
(at the moment, anyone who sticks up for motorists in *any way* is
made to feel very unwelcome, and is either called a "troll" or very
reluctantly tolerated, which simply shouldn't happen in a cycling
newsgroup). Surely it's worth at least talking about that approach
before giving up on the group for good?
Just ask yourself a question: "If Guy Chapman and Spindrift left the
group, would it get better overall as a result, or worse?" We all
know the answer. Yet Chapman's sycophants rally round and ensure once
again that the Dreadful Truth isn't mentioned, lest it offend their
Master. Even when they're desperately trying to save their group,
they still daren't even mention the one solution that would actually
work. They would rather lose their group than risk incurring
Chapman's wrath. It's just bizarre. What has Chapman done to earn
this "position", and why are they so scared of him: what can he do to
them if they "disobey" him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:04:37 +0100, "wafflycat" <...@btco*nnect.com
"chris French" <...@gauva.familyfrench.co.uk...
Same here. Even with kill-files of the obvious trolls, it was the trolls'
nym-shifting and those who for some odd reason seem to think that entering
dialogue with a troll is going to produce rational discussion that has
ruined the group.
Another couple of newsgroups I frequent (non-cycling and also unmoderated)
that have been around for years and continue to thrive have little problem
with trolls for the simple reason that trolls are ignored. Starved of
'oxygen' the trolls get bored and go away. Newcomers to the groups are
welcomed, but if a welcomed newbie turns out to be a troll after all, then
the only thing that works is done. And it works. For some reason, too many
on URC can't do this and the group, which *was* a welcoming place for the
discussion of all aspects of cycling has effectively been destroyed by
trolls and those who keep on responding to the trolls. I periodically have a
look at what is going on in URC, having once been a regular denizen of the
group and alas it's the now usual troll-fest. And it's a shame it happened.
Indeed. I see a lot of people I know originally via URC now on web-based
fora which are all moderated, and on blogs. Years ago URC gave me a lot of
information and encouragement when I got back into cycling after years and
years away from it and I am grateful for that. I have also made some good
friends over the years thanks to participation in the group. Good
discussions were held - it was never a place where everyone agreed with each
other all the time - robust discussions were held - but it was never the
troll-fest it has become these days. Indeed if I were a newbie to cycling
now, I'd take one look at the current URC and never go back again. It would
be, I think, good try to get back to that original ethos of URC and I think
that having a moderated group is the only way it is likely to have a chance
of succeeding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
wafflycat <...@£btco*nn£ect.com
I beg to differ. What ruined the group was accepting the militant
cyclists as regulars and then adopting their views. URC became a cycling
madrasah, indoctrinating the faithfull in the "one true path" and where
any voice of dissent was howled down by the massed loons.
I'm going to be amused to see what happens in the moderated group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Andy Leighton <...@azaal.plus.com
it's not impossible to get newsreaders to kill file author and then
followups so I don't see guy taunting them or what ever as it's all been
killed.
so for me it's fine thank you very much.
roger
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
http://www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:35:26 +0100, chris French <...@familyfrench.co.uk
In message <...@wodger.demon.co.ukMerriman <...@wodger.demon.co.ukIt's just the crap that gets posted, much of that is killed here as
well.
It's as much that amount of the enjoyable cycling discussion has gone
down, presumably because of people stopping reading the group?
--
Chris French
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
chris French <...@familyfrench.co.uk
in many ways usenet needs killfiles as it's largely un moderated, so you
need to either killfile or other ways of filtering though.
does apear so yes.
roger
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
http://www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:05:08 +0100, Roger Thorpe <...@warwick.ac.uk
At the moment I'm less bothered by the trolls and their lunatic nonsense
than I am by the way that every thread either originates as, or is
turned into an argument about road safety.
I'm not sure that moderation will change that, but I hope it will.
--
Roger Thorpe
She said her stereo was four-way, and I'd just love it in her room.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Roger Thorpe <...@warwick.ac.uk
it has been uk.transport.cycling for some time now which is why i have
mostly shifted to web forums.
as there only so many primary/helmets etc that one can be intrested in,
or rather not.
roger
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
http://www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 03:54:34 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
Thing is, I don't /want/ to killfile Guy. He is well informed, well
connected, and often has useful, valuable interesting and amusing
things to say. But under present conditions you pretty much have to,
because every cast of a lure from a troll and he's on it like a flash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
you don't have to!
i don't and i still don't see any of his replys to trolls they are
mostly all killfiled with a rule thats says killfile this author
auto-kill any replys to this post. so i only see guy's posts about
bromptons, to be honest.
roger
--
http://www.rogermerriman.com
Capital to Coast
http://www.justgiving.com/rogermerriman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
<boggle
He's become an obsessed one-trick pony.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:58:03 -0700 (PDT), "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@SPAMCOP.NET
But on the plus side if you're only going to have one trick then it's
a great trick: designing virtual infrastructures, SANs and disaster
recovery environments while simultaneously developing an endpoint
management and compliance framework, all while building a model
railway, singing and riding a bicycle.
--
Guy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? <...@SPAMCOP.NET
How odd, that's what I do. You're not unique.
Yeah, I had to share a desk with someone as tedious as that last year
while building a pair of data centres. There's something about DCs that
seems to attract the lycra brigade, unfortunately. Fortunately the car
park was full of the usual collection of BMWs, Jags, Astons, Porsches
etc so we could ignore the smelly loon on a bike most of the time.
However as is usual with loons, you seem to try to justify your
monomaniacal car-hating habits by reference to something completely
unrelated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:52:28 +0100, Judith M Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:33:24 -0500, Andy Leighton
<...@azaal.plus.com
Have you not got the ability to kill-file people.
So - some people are incompetent and cannot control themselves -
therefore we must have a moderated group. Is that what you are
saying?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:48:17 +0100, Tom Crispin <...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:33:24 -0500, Andy Leighton
<...@azaal.plus.com
I can tolerate them, just as I could tolerate a chap with Tourette's
sitting in a pub.
>cyclists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:32:29 +0100, "Colin Reed" <...@no-spam.lineone.net
"Tom Crispin" <...@4ax.com...
Although if people came into a pub deliberately being provocative with
things like "all beer drinkers are fuckwits" and suggesting that it is
inevitable that a bib wearing law would be passed, then you might reasonably
expect the landlord to chuck them out.
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
Colin Reed <...@no-spam.lineone.net
I don't think so. I've seen people with similar views in pubs. They get
ignored or people treat them with respect for their views but they only
get asked to leave if they start being aggressive. Judith passed over
that particular hurdle some time ago. Indeed she is combative and
pointlessly aggressive each time she tries to indulge in conversation
with others. The real way for dealing with such people in newsgroups is
discipline among the other newsgroup users.
Sadly the URC regulars seem rather short on personal discipline and have
this bizarre view that an insult to a bicycle is just cause for
vituperative attack. Weird.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:20:36 +0100, "Colin Reed" <...@nospam-lineone.net
"Steve Firth" <...@malloc.co.uk...
Quite - I'd imagined someone in the aggressive "judith" mode as my
provocative pub customer, maybe it didn't come across that way when I wrote
it.
Well I don't see it quite as bad as that, but if that's your perception then
so be it. Opinions vary, and as long as they're not deliberately
misrepresented in other groups in an effort to sabotage the vote, then
everyone is entitled to their own.
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 09:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Simon Brooke <...@googlemail.com
Sadly, this is indeed part of the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:59:43 -0700 (PDT), James <...@gmail.com
On Jun 24, 6:24 am, Tom Crispin
<...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
If urcm turns out as badly as you are worrying, there is nothing to
stop people using urc. Of course people will drift away, they always
do, the posters here are not the same as they were even 5 years ago
let alone 10.
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:00:41 +0100, Marc <...@btintenret.com
>I am!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:09:35 +0100, chris French <...@familyfrench.co.uk
In message <...@btintenret.com
Me too :-)
And there are a number of regulars that ISTR as being around for a long
time
--
Chris French
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:15:14 -0700 (PDT), James <...@gmail.com
On Jun 24, 7:00 am, Marc <...@btintenret.com
Can I borrow your mirror?
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:31:39 +0100, Marc <...@btintenret.com
Yes, as long as you don't touch the picture in the attic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:48:18 +0100, Judith M Smith <...@live.co.uk
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:59:43 -0700 (PDT), James
<...@gmail.com
There has been an inability for certain individuals (eg Guy Chapman)
to use a kill-file.
This is not a good reason to introduce the moderated group.
The vast majority of nym-shifts were not made by the "trolls" but by
people like Chapman and Raven who thought that they could post
anonymously - but were in fact caught out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:49:24 +0100, Tom Crispin <...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:59:43 -0700 (PDT), James
<...@gmail.com
My point is that ucrm will speed the decline of urc, not prolong it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Wrote:
In article <...@4ax.com
But is the decline reversible, and if so how? If the decline is
inevitable, speeding it up might well be a worthwhile price to pay
(assuming that the moderated group doesn't suffer a similar decline).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:49:03 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <...@spamcop.net
On 24 Jun 2009 07:42:37 +0100 (BST), arm...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan
I do not know whether both groups will thrive, whether the moderated
group will get all the interesting stuff and the unmoderated die, or
whether the lack of an audience will cause judith and Nuxx to give up
and go home, in which case people will probably move back to urc.
I don't think this matters. The resources required are modest, so
whether there is a long-term future for both groups is probably not
that relevant to the question of whether there is, right now,
significant (and sufficient) demand for the new group.
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, 24 Jun 2009 08:17:32 +0100, Geoff Berrow <...@ckdog.co.uk
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:49:03 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<...@spamcop.net
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.
As for the future I suspect that is one or two people got bored and
moved on urc would be fine and there would be no need for urcm.
My prediction is that it will follow ulym, but we'll have to see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:14:05 +0100, "Wm..." <...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk
Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:17:32 <...@4ax.comuk.net.news.config Geoff Berrow <...@ckdog.co.uk
I can't see anything serious worth picking at in the charter in the 2nd
RFD. Can anyone else see a problem from the pure unnc end?
My reading of the 2nd discussion so far (no kf for the 2nd RFD to date)
is that nothing new is coming up and a fast track should be considered.
Aside: I notice at least one sock post has been made in the last day or
so and some people may want to push a fast track to a vote just for
perversion. I can't recall if we have ever had a 6 sock fast track
block.
All the above was unnc hat.
I'm inclined to agree on principle but since it seems they won't, urcm
seems necessary or at least worth a try (as a cyclist I don't follow urc
but would follow urcm).
I'm going to predict otherwise. I think urcm will succeed long term.
The break in my head sums is something like this:
against: about 3 (for whatever reason)
for: many
wavering: quite a few (mainly, I think, "we want it back like it
was" OR "if you used your kf it could be like it was")
interlocutors: a few but I'd like to think they'd stand down from a
fast track and don't think they are the sort of person
that would vote against a group they don't have an
essential interest in (though I agree the discussion is
fun).
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:15:41 -0700 (PDT), James <...@gmail.com
On Jun 24, 4:22 am, Tom Crispin
<...@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge
I think it's worth explicitly drawing your (and others') attention to
the fact that a significant number of ex-contributors (who I presume
have been occasionally lurking, but basically not posting) have been
tempted back to add their support for this proposal. These old posters
are real people with a history you can check, who have (understandably
but regrettably IMO) given up on urc as it now is. I think their real
contribution substantially outweighs the vague spectre of hypothetical
newcomers who might potentially be put off by - shock, horror - the
spectre of having to think before they post.
James
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 04:22:20 -0700 (PDT), al Mossah <...@hotmail.co.uk
On 24 June, 02:15, James <...@gmail.com
Exactly right. Makes me look forward to URCM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:39:03 GMT, Alex Potter <...@ap-consulting.co.uk
James wrote on Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:15:41 -0700:
That has been very noticeable. I eagerly await more Tales of an Unfit
Family, and perhaps even news of Trevor.
--
Alex
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the
same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:11:31 +0100, Marc <...@btintenret.com
And the ladies...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|