Nuxx:De54baf3-4640-4b39-a77b-c379f07f1bba@m19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!m19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:49:23 -0700 (PDT) References:  <0ok2259473t80krhe78he3kc34df2q0p2h@4ax.com>   <0ME*FWpIs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>  Lines: 48 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1243892963 31050 127.0.0.1 (1 Jun 2009 21:49:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 21:49:23 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4047 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:706237

On Jun 1, 9:23=A0pm, jms  wrote: > On 01 Jun 2009 16:15:08 +0100 (BST), David Damerell > >  wrote: > >Quoting =A0Tom Crispin =A0: > >>In a moderated group the moderator should allow the message, but could > >>post an agreed faq to the message immediately. =A0The difficulty would > >>be finding a consensus of what should go in the faq. =A0We all have > >>different shades of opinion on the effeciveness of cycle helmets. > > >My inclination would be to compel the endless helmet thread to have some > >fixed string in the Subject line for ease of killfiling. Someone posting > >without the string gets the FAQ - which starts with a description of how > >it's been done to death already and please don't just grind the same > >issues over and over again - and if they must they can resubmit the > >article with an appropriate Subject line. > > Absolutely - we wouldn't want any genuine debate would we.

Nope. We've got a whole load of people here who want as few restrictions on cyclists as possible, no matter what the consequences, because cycling is "morally superior" to motoring. But to ease their consciences (or what passes for them), they'd rather kid themselves that their "no helmet" advocacy saves lives instead of costing them.

This self-delusion works quite well, except when some pop-eyed carpet biter comes on here and bursts their bubble by posting the truth: their "no helmet" advocacy kills people. So what's the best way all round to solve that problem? Stop knowingly advocating things which kill people? Christ no: just go to incredible lengths to censor the truth, and continue the self-delusion.

For most here, it's exactly the same with speed camera advocacy: they know that cameras kill people, but they still advocate them because they make things hard for, and constantly say "Up yours" to, motorists. The callousness of knowingly campaigning for measures which kill people is just unbelievable. No wonder such people feel the need to delude themselves...only the likes of Spindrift don't need to, being so mentally ill that they have no sense of guilt whatsoever about such things. Moreover, the determination to censor those who dare to tell the truth about people being killed is straight out of the most depressing of dystopian future novels.

DISGUSTING. DISGUSTING. You should all be ASHAMED. *ASHAMED*. Why are you doing this? It's very sad. (And no prizes for guessing just how biased the "FAQs" about cameras/helmets/etc will be.)

NUXX BAR