Nuxx:C3d32560-1b3e-48b1-b523-b011bb8cb075@h2g2000yqg.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!h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling,uk.net.news.config Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 13:56:48 -0700 (PDT) References:   <1b578d11-adc3-470c-8475-a2b0ac04c014@g19g2000yql.googlegroups.com> <5f6768f6-e7e9-4adc-b012-7fe243af9335@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>       <29354d23-e877-458f-8647-0f46a4dc54b7@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> Lines: 59 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.163.209.43 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1247173009 25381 127.0.0.1 (9 Jul 2009 20:56:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 20:56:49 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.163.209.43; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4927 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:6980 uk.net.news.config:55834

On Jul 9, 8:34=A0pm, Simon Brooke  wrote: > On 9 July, 16:08, jms  wrote: > > > > > If you propose =A0that cycle helmets are worth while wearing - then you > > are trolling. > > > If you comment that cycling is more dangerous than walking as a means > > of transport and post figures to prove it - then you are trolling. > > > If you show that cyclehelmets.org is not the fair and balanced site > > some would have it is : then you are trolling. > > > If you propose that mandatory cycle lanes should be what the name > > implies - then you are trolling. > > If you went on a Jewish site and proposed mandatory yellow stars and > mandatory ghettoes, you would be trolling, right? So =A0- seriously - > what's the difference?

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)?

Personally I don't think that either behaviour is trolling, as long as the person genuinely believes what they are saying, puts together a reasoned argument and doesn't use dubious tactics to try to "win" the debate unfairly. Now hardly any speed camera advocates that I've seen on motoring newsgroups/forums have managed those things, probably because it is objectively incorrect to support speed cameras (despite some people desperately wanting that not to be the case), and clearly when the likes of Spindrift go on Safe Speed with their dishonest, antagonistic rubbish then that's unquestionably trolling, but Judith absolutely does manage to put forward her arguments properly, genuinely and honestly, and thus is only accused of "trolling" by those who think that "trolling" means "disagreeing with them".

Neither Judith nor I (nor anyone, bar the likes of Happi Monday) are here to troll, and the sooner you and your ilk accept that, the better for everyone. If you think we're here to troll, then why do *you* think that anti-troll tactics which normally work effectively in getting rid of trolls (I've seen it on forums where I'm a regular) have singularly failed to get rid of us? Please try to come up with something better and less predictable than "Because you're both very, very persistent, more so than pretty much any other troll ever". That won't wash. There are all sorts of differences between us and real trolls if you would just look for them.

Now. Let's see if you can come up with anything of substance in reply to the above. And if you can't, don't worry, just pretend you haven't seen the post and don't reply...it's what your mates like to do after all. (Yes, I know some of them have killfiled me, but some haven't, and seem to be very good at avoiding "challenging" posts while cherry- picking the ones which are easier to respond to.)