Nuxx:MPG.2791909e5f872e2f989851@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!txtfeed2.tudelft.nl!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM: How is Suggesting Compulsory Rider Testing "Inflammatory"? Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 21:06:07 -0000 References:    Lines: 34 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 88d9b880.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=namhO^AP\TWH[iW:9j2WmTA1PW`:ITG5aA:cWF\8e@g6Bc]] X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 2805 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:35917

In article , a24061a@ducksburg.com says... > > I see no reason why a moderated cycling newsgroup should accept > anti-cycling posts.

Ridiculous. Firstly there is nothing in the charter about "anti-cycling posts", and we were repeatedly assured during the "create group" RFD stage that URCM was not being formed in order to exclude particular opinions. (Of course it's now apparent that that was just one of a series of bare-faced lies that we were schemingly told in order to force through the formation of URCM in its current illegitimate form, but that's another thread.)

Secondly, it is not "anti-cycling" to suggest perfectly sensible checks and balances that no law-abiding, safe cyclist should have an issue with. Once one had passed the appropriate tests, got the appropriate insurance etc, they could cycle just as freely as they can now, except it would be better because they could be sure that other (legal) cyclists were all of a certain standard, insured, etc. I really don't see the issue...is this another opposing-all-restrictions-on-cyclists- for-the-sake-of-it thing, like the helmet nonsense?

On the other hand, despite your previous denials, it *is* anti-motoring to (for example) support robotic mass-enforcement of speed limits in the full knowledge that it doesn't improve safety: if you're not doing it for safety reasons then what other motive could there be except wanting to punish motorists?

You've got it all arse-about-face I'm afraid. If you're going to continue to hold your present opinions then you need to accept that it's you who is anti-motoring and your opponents who are not anti-anything, rather than you being not anti-anything and your opponents being "anti- cycling".