Nuxx:397091d1-3083-438d-a6a3-0ae109cec3e9@r3g2000vbp.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!r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <397091d1-3083-438d-a6a3-0ae109cec3e9@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 00:42:33 -0700 (PDT) References:   <0tk925tu9futl1k2kcmedg94sdg2iuhlbi@4ax.com>  <874ouz2fho.fsf@toy.config>   Lines: 34 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 1244014953 28591 127.0.0.1 (3 Jun 2009 07:42:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:42:33 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r3g2000vbp.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: 2860 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:52652 uk.rec.cycling:4585

On Jun 2, 11:30=A0am, Ian Smith  wrote: > On Tue, 02 Jun 2009, Roger Thorpe  wrote: > > =A0Daniel Barlow wrote: > > > "Nigel Cliffe"  writes: > > > >> I see no point in blocking any > > >> views which are expressed in a civil manner and are broadly relevant= to > > >> cycling. > > > > "Relevant" is a good word. =A0Perhaps "civil, pleasant, and sympathet= ic > > > to cyclists and cycling" could be replaced with "civil, pleasant, and > > > relevant to the interests of cyclists and cycling". > > > > -dan > > > =A0My first reaction to this was that while that formula would defeat n= uxx > > =A0and Doug, judith is quite capable of being civil and pleasant (have = a > > =A0look at her posts to other groups) and my gut feelingwas that I want= ed > > =A0something that would reliably exclude all three of them. > > That's a bad reason. > > If what you actually want is just to ban nuxx doug and judith, then > the charter should say so. =A0I would vote against such a charter.

I don't often agree with you, but you're spot on in this thread. The above is the *exact* reason why this whole thing is happening, and everyone knows it. The whole thing is a sham, and we shouldn't be wasting the time of unnc with any of it.