Nuxx:MPG.2625dbb932ebdb8698971c@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!txtfeed2.tudelft.nl!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Sad Bastards Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2010 01:01:58 +0100 References:   <0q2mr5tj1ujm2mc29i4ck0fqijfnev956o@4ax.com>   Lines: 51 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 1f754393.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=fe=Pdn9`d6j\PSINQ]X;?i0g@SS;SF6ngR9OH0:RnENd:hoe0Z_FD?f`:ITG5aA:cgh8JiTGn0DT` X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 3612 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:760602

In article , kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says... > > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 12:03:45 +0100, Clive George >  wrote: > > >On 06/04/2010 11:22, Tom Crispin wrote: > >> On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:21:13 +0100, bugbear > >>  wrote: > >> > >>> You know Judith, every time I think UCRM > >>> has problems, you post something that makes > >>> your absence alone sufficient reason for its existence. > >> > >> Not for people whose posts are blocked. > > > >Fortunately that's nobody. Including you. > > You may note that Simon Brooke has declined to answer a direct > question: > Message-ID: 

Is that like when Clive George declined to answer your direct question about whether he opposed the publication of rejected URCM posts? Funny that...almost like there's a pattern whereby if an irrational psycholist is asked a question and answering that question truthfully would make them look bad then they simply refuse to answer the question at all - as if that's going to fool anyone.

And oh look, Clive George hasn't replied to your post here either...looks like he's conceded this debate as well then!

And elsewhere, Clive George is pathetically altering people's posts in the manner that Alan Braggins did not so long ago. As they're both URCM "moderators" their behaviour really should be *much* better than that, and when they are beaten in a debate then they should have the guts to admit defeat gracefully rather than adopting the pathetic Chapman Strategy and running away from difficult questions.

There's got to be some reason why Clive George is always so determined to defend every aspect of URCM (and why he keeps dodging questions...if he knows that what he's saying in defence of URCM isn't watertight then why does he keep saying it unless he has one or more hidden reasons for doing so?) No-one else who supposedly isn't involved with URCM has jumped to its defence anywhere near as much as George. In fact he may well be URCM's staunchest defender full stop. Is this just because he shares Jackson's "philosophy" (cyclists are great, motorists are scum and dissenting voices must be systematically silenced) or is there more to it than that? Is he a sock of Jackson or one of his subordinates? I think we should be told. But of course this will be yet another awkward question that Clive George ducks.