Nuxx:3a24a47f-6a92-4538-be53-cf46f286ea99@e21g2000yqb.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!e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3a24a47f-6a92-4538-be53-cf46f286ea99@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: URC/URCM potential FAQ on helmets Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:01:43 -0700 (PDT) References: <39qi259ef67cfbf5va35g128lg25rv2bm9@4ax.com>  <45405b45-80f0-4814-986a-ea65ed62374e@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>  <14ok259mou91lc5qpncbloddrst93rvu1i@4ax.com>        <1c7d9ffc-8550-4aba-8900-dcb542961ef7@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> Lines: 37 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1244887303 10295 127.0.0.1 (13 Jun 2009 10:01:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:01:43 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; 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: 3498 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:830170

On Jun 13, 9:38=A0am, Simon Brooke  wrote: > On 12 June, 16:29, PhilO  wrote: > > > ... Judith M Smith ... is not an > > authoritative source for anything =A0- and should not be> treated as if= it is. > > > > It is very biased, prone to exaggeration, and putting ... spin on > > > simple facts - in some cases it is plain wrong. > > > Post now corrected > > I have to say that /if/ there's a moderated group and /if/ I'm > involved in moderation, anyone who 'corrects' anyone else's post in > this way, on any subject, will be unlikely to have their views heard. > It ain't funny, it ain't clever, it ain't witty, it ain't post-modern. > It is the worst sort of craven and dishonest abuse, to deliberately > misrepresent what someone else has said. > > If you believe your opponent is mendacious or disingenuous in their > post, then the correct response is to quote relevant parts of their > post WITHOUT amending it, and then go on to explain in what way you > believe they are misleading. Two lies do not equal truth.

Alan Braggins, one of the proposed "moderators", did the exact same thing in reply to one of my posts just 4 days ago:

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.rec.cycling/browse_frm/thread/3f3ad51101b= 28725#

I assume that you'll be asking for him not to be a "moderator", or at the very least admonishing him?

(I put "moderator" in quotes as in the case of URCM it's not really about moderation, it's about censorship of certain points of view, which is only being dressed up as moderation because otherwise it wouldn't be possible to create such a group on usenet.)