Nuxx:64f4e839-1da2-4987-b401-61720d1697fe@b9g2000yqm.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!b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <64f4e839-1da2-4987-b401-61720d1697fe@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Ian Jackson: Why Alan Braggins as a "Moderator"? Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 18:19:31 -0700 (PDT) References: <309e9393-c8d1-4a3b-8f86-5dab443f4b15@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <7e86a8ed-3282-4efe-afca-b4586a3ab227@q37g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> Lines: 63 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.153.43.239 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246583971 7202 127.0.0.1 (3 Jul 2009 01:19:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 01:19:31 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.153.43.239; 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: 4732 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:714020

On Jul 2, 10:08=A0am, robert hancy  wrote: > On Jul 2, 5:00=A0am, Nuxx Bar  wrote: > > > > > Ian Jackson: Please state why you have selected Alan Braggins as a > > "moderator" of URCM, despite numerous objections (even from URC > > "regulars"), and despite the fact that his behaviour (e.g. forging > > posts, "troll"-baiting, intolerance of those with whom he disagrees, > > all of which have happened recently) clearly makes him a bad choice? > > > Did you choose him because he's a personal friend of yours and he uses > > your server? =A0Would you still have chosen him had he not been a frien= d > > of yours and/or disagreed with you about helmets, anti-motorist > > measures etc? =A0Do you think the list of moderators should be a bunch > > of people who are your friends and who agree with you about most > > things, or do you think it should comprise people who aren't > > necessarily your mates, have a diverse range of opinions and intend to > > moderate impartially according to whether people have broken the rules > > rather than what they think about things? =A0I guess the answer to that > > depends upon why the new group's really being proposed. > > > Despite your heavily sarcastic and oh-so-witty protestations to the > > contrary, you have not properly explained why you selected some > > moderators and not others. =A0Please list each proposed "moderator" and > > your reasons for selecting them. =A0Why have you selected Peter Clinch > > when he's not even bothering to contribute to this discussion, and is > > blatantly unsuitable anyway? =A0Why have you selected Simon Brooke when > > he has gone on record as saying that he doesn't intend to "moderate" > > fairly? =A0Is that all part of the plan (i.e. moderating fairly has > > nothing to do with it, as this whole thing is just an exercise in > > getting rid of people who have certain opinions)? =A0Would you have > > selected JNugent, Simon Mason or Tom Crispin had they volunteered > > themselves? =A0If not, why not? > > > Finally, do you think it is appropriate for you, as the proponent of a > > "moderated" group who should surely be leading by example, to call > > your opponents names like "troll" just because you disagree with > > them? =A0(What's that? =A0"I don't"? =A0Then please list all speed came= ra > > opponents on URC who you don't think are "trolls" and haven't > > killfiled. =A0What's that? =A0"There aren't any"? =A0Well there's a > > coincidence.) > > > Can't reply without losing face? =A0Better not reply at all then, and > > hope people believe that you just happened to re-killfile me just > > before you would have read this post. > > May I please ask that you stop polluting a cycling website with your > pro-speeding posts that disrupt the board? Safespeed are and always > have been a laughing stock, a quick visit to their website forum will > confirm this to anyone who can be bothered to check. Why not go and > post there, you don't cycle, you have no interest in cycling, you are > clearly mentally ill and you have far too much time on your hands for > a lad in his mid twenties.

Hi Spindrift!

("Far too much time on your hands", even though I spend less than half an hour a day posting to this cesspit? Yet another example of a camera supporter having severe problems with numbers and what they mean.)