Nuxx:MPG.2552c3b494f1af36989689@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!hq-usenetpeers.eweka.nl!81.171.88.15.MISMATCH!eweka.nl!lightspeed.eweka.nl!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: "Just zis Guy, you know?"  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: On the subject of contentious addeda Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:10:44 -0000 References:  <4o3ge5pgb1ei65dea0fivjdad56go74tmt@4ax.com> <016ge59uqb8mkvddtanj66otiaqml3agkk@4ax.com> <1j8alrs.k0d0sz2nly9N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> <7kqmdfF3afkneU1@mid.individual.net>  Lines: 45 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.13 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091028-0, 28/10/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 80cafdc1.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=dn43R93JD?l]RGn>>0bnok4Z\, devnull@woodall.me.uk says... > > Yes this is normal usenet custom. But what happens in URC is that anyone > making point A will get reponse B. Response B should then generate > reponses to continue the discussion. > > However, what then happens is that the person posting point A reposts it > to B and every other response to B. > > This new A then generates a new set of B' (where B' differs from B only > in "I've already said this once") > > These B' may then also trigger some discussion from people who didn't > see/reply to the original B. This lot then generate another load of A > posts which get B'' replies ("I've already said this twice before") > > Ad nauseum.

But hang on a minute. What if point A is demonstrably correct, and made by those who are being honest about their true agenda, while point B is demonstrably false, and is only made by the ignorant and by those who know it to be false but have selfish reasons for wishing to pretend otherwise? Why the hell shouldn't the honest people keep making point A in response to the scheming liars making point B?

Why should the car-haters be allowed to keep saying (without correction) that speed cameras save lives when *even they* know that the opposite is true? Why shouldn't the people who really care about road safety and the facts be entitled to point out that cameras kill people, however much of an inconvenient dent it puts in the "arguments" made by those who are so consumed by their irrational hatred of motorists that they think nothing of advocating anti-car measures which they know to be killing people?

In other words, the above self-righteous preaching about point A and point B only stacks up when point A and point B are essentially "equal" in that neither can be conclusively demonstrated to be "right" or "wrong". Where the debate is over and we have enough evidence to decide who's correct, as with speed cameras, there is absolutely no reason why those who are right shouldn't keep restating the truth until and unless everyone accepts reality and stops spouting rubbish about the topic. People have no right to propagate falsehoods unopposed, and that's as true with "Speed kills" or "Speed cameras save lives" as it is with "The Earth is flat" or "Creationism is correct".