Nuxx:98953362-d9d4-4468-b1f2-e8980ce9f8e7@m17g2000vbi.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!m17g2000vbi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <98953362-d9d4-4468-b1f2-e8980ce9f8e7@m17g2000vbi.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Looking for a cycle orientated moderated website/forum Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 07:25:20 -0700 (PDT) References: <45a20d83-6798-41c3-a4a6-e5d36b5de7ff@r13g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 43 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.145.66.20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1242915920 29751 127.0.0.1 (21 May 2009 14:25:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 14:25:20 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: m17g2000vbi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.145.66.20; 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: 3490 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:702934

On May 21, 3:09=A0pm, RudiL  wrote: > > the abuse etc that goes on here

...from BOTH "sides", but let me guess, you're only bothered about the abuse *towards* Chapman and his followers?

> deranged postings from motorists with bees in their bonnets would never > be tolerated there.

If by that you mean "any postings which defend motorists", you'd be wrong, as I've written plenty of such posts on Cycle Chat, and never been banned. In fact I've had explicit written permission to post on such subjects from the forum owner and a moderator. You've made it amply clear that *you* would rather the "wrong" opinions were censored (even if they actually happen to be correct), but thankfully the powers that be at Cycle Chat don't share your philosophy.

You see, not everyone wants to ban people from disagreeing with them, and not everyone equates "cycling advocacy" with "a dislike of motorists and censorship of anyone who defends them" (in fact the second thing actually makes the first thing harder, not easier, and real cyclists must be getting pretty sick of car-haters hijacking their cause and damaging it).

At the end of the day, someone only wants to stop particular opinions from being posted when they know they can't refute them. This case is no exception. Why have you adopted an anti-motorist stance when you know that you can't defend it and that it's not logical? Is it just a case of "I'm a university lecturer so I have to be stereotypically 'trendy' about everything, and 'trendy' types don't like cars"? Are you that shallow and idiotic about everything in your life? How about forming opinions because you think they're the right opinions, and not because you think they're "expected" of you?

> The URL is:http://www.cyclechat.co.uk/forums/

It's an OK forum. One shouldn't be put off by the fact that an "I want to censor my opponents" type like RudiL has advocated it; he hasn't been on Cycle Chat for long and obviously hasn't seen much of it yet. It does have his pillocks, of course, but the worst ones (like Spindrift and Chapman) have long since been banned, and quite rightly so.