Nuxx:499c4b93-03fa-48d4-bafe-668af925129e@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com

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!postnews.google.com!z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <499c4b93-03fa-48d4-bafe-668af925129e@z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM - more rude and unnecessary moderator remarks Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:02:01 -0700 (PDT) References: <8vgp45FhvuU1@mid.individual.net>   <8vhotmF5h7U1@mid.individual.net> <29dcc6aa-af67-4fbb-a79a-a98ad7ff7f3f@18g2000prd.googlegroups.com> Lines: 28 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1301659321 24413 127.0.0.1 (1 Apr 2011 12:02:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:02:01 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z37g2000vbl.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2889 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39801

On Apr 1, 11:42=A0am, Trollsworth LeTrole  wrote: > > "of interest to cyclists" is a lot broader than > just posting that explicitly makes bicycles. The politics of road > transport in general is frequently of interest to cyclists and > relevant to cycling.

Yes, and that is reflected by the fact that many people on both "sides" are eager to discuss it on URCM (when they're allowed to). Why not just let them? It reeks of some "moderators" not wanting the discussion to progress because they're afraid that the logical conclusion will be something other than "Making things as difficult as possible for car drivers is the only way to make the roads safe".

For example, they know really that building a proper motorway network would make cycling safer and more pleasant, but they can't allow that to be shown, because they are ideologically against driving, and when it comes to choosing between making cycling safer and making driving harder, they will go for the second one every time (but of course they won't admit it).

Until URCM is moderated by people who prioritise the newsgroup being "of interest to cyclists" above it being "of interest to and agreeing with car-haters", we'll run into the same old problems. As Jackson is clearly very much against motoring and not about to change his stance (or stop trying to inflict it on everyone else), it's clear that he needs to go, and he's not going to go without the inevitable RFD.