Nuxx:3e202a86-afb2-46b5-b394-c7e66ccb26c9@o6g2000yqj.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!o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3e202a86-afb2-46b5-b394-c7e66ccb26c9@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: http://www.mybikelane.com/ Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:15:48 -0700 (PDT) References: <4379651use228p9i50sqsvuiisfkfkta2v@4ax.com> <5c5b8d94935fd92300fee0623aa05353@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>  <20090722141049.212bfea6@bluemoon>     Lines: 66 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.153.43.65 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248372948 30435 127.0.0.1 (23 Jul 2009 18:15:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:15:48 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.153.43.65; 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: 4756 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:56323 uk.rec.cycling:7340

On Jul 23, 6:29=A0pm, Percy Picacity  wrote: > jms  wrote innews:of4f65516k1ha0gf4qrsn1mbellm= gf2cj1@4ax.com: > > > > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:22:41 +0000 (UTC), Percy Picacity > > wrote: > > >>"Anthony R. Gold"  wrote in > >>news:aeme65hj5g4qsmot3nq010mnq7adnhn70p@4ax.com: > > >>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:10:49 +0100, Rob Morley > >>>  wrote: > > >>>> "The purpose of this vote is to determine the genuine interest > >>>> of persons who would read the proposed newsgroup > > >>>> Soliciting votes from disinterested parties defeats this > >>>> purpose. > > >>> The sense of that statement suggests it should be about > >>> uninterested parties and not disinterested ones. > > >>I disagree. =A0Clearly someone who votes must be quite interested. > >>If however his interest is merely to interfere with the lawful > >>occasions of some ng users when he (the voter) doesn't read any > >>existing group nor is likely to read any proposed group involved, > >>then he might rightly be said to be disinterested in the result of > >>the vote. > > > The subtlety was that you need to understand the difference > > between uninterested and disinterested. > > > Disinterested parties are precisely those =A0who could be persuaded. > > And the thinking behind the rules is that disinterested parties > should mind their own business and not vote on some general socio- > political grounds. =A0This is likely to matter if the subject of the > newsgroup is some downtrodden minority against whom it is easy to > whip up antipathy among the disinterested.

Actually, most people on the Internet realise that URC has been taken over by car-hating nutcases who couldn't give a stuff about cycling and are just out to make drivers' lives a misery. Unsurprisingly, most normal people object to such spiteful, demented, sociopathic behaviour, so it's not at all surprising that almost everyone who came from "outside" would vote against the proposal (especially since, predictably enough, the proposed group's purpose is to censor the "wrong" opinions and those who irritatingly keep exposing the car haters' true aims).

In fact, thanks for reminding me: all we have to do to secure a "no" vote is to ask a sufficient number of normal everyday motorists to vote. Actually, that's likely to be the *only* way to derail this ludicrous idea in the short term. I'll get onto it. We cannot have usenet being abused in this way just so that a few fuckwits can have their private anti-motorist discussions without it being spoiled by people who tell it how it is. If they want to have such a discussion forum, that's fine, but they should be using their own private forum rather than usenet, which is NOT THERE FOR SUCH THINGS, and they fucking well know it. The whole thing is a cynical, dishonest abuse of other people's resources, and is par for the course when it comes to the wretched, lying, car-hating scum, who never go about *anything* connected with their anti-motorist activities in a remotely decent and honest fashion.