Nuxx:18e7808b-1781-450c-b19a-0434c1aa5539@n4g2000vba.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!n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <18e7808b-1781-450c-b19a-0434c1aa5539@n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Pre-RFD: uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:50:01 -0700 (PDT) References: <2lc*4xWHs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <784aj1F1j3r9uU1@mid.individual.net> <57bbb322-a374-4d35-99bd-717a62887981@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>  <1df1b7b3-bde8-4429-8103-eb76aed8f91a@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>    <3mht155g540c1u5p5g4f3lt6e2m3r9mopi@4ax.com>  Lines: 61 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1243705801 12606 127.0.0.1 (30 May 2009 17:50:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 17:50:01 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: n4g2000vba.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; 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: 4560 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:705581

On May 28, 7:01=A0pm, Tom Crispin  wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2009 18:20:07 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" > > > >  wrote: > >On Thu, 28 May 2009 11:20:00 -0500, Andy Leighton > > wrote: > > >>> =A0- spam > >>> =A0- offensive language > >>> =A0- personal abuse > >>> =A0- persistent off-topic posts > >>> =A0- harassment > >>> =A0- persistent name changing > >>I would add > >> =A0 - forging (or attempting to forge) approval of posts or cancels. > > >All good points, but what do we do if someone, to pluck a purely > >theoretical example out of the air, uses a signature which states > >cycling is dangerous based on figures they have been told are not > >comparable (and why) and reacts to a published correction making event > >hat spurious reasoning invalid by simply switching to a different and > >vastly less accurate set of figures to pursue the same agenda? > > >What form of words would control the behaviour of someone who comes > >here, states a view which is wrong, and reacts to correction by simply > >continually asserting the same incorrect view? =A0This is one of the > >major problems in the group right now, above and beyond the abusive > >and harassing nature of that individual's posts. =A0If it is not > >deliberately calculated to provoke anger and aggressive responses for > >purposes of further escalation, then it does an extraordinarily good > >job of pretending to be so intended. > > Repeatedly stating a view, correct or incorrect, is, in itself, not > actionable in my opinion.

That is the difference between you/Simon Mason and most of the "regulars". You tolerate other points of view being stated; they don't, and look for all sorts of excuses to gag the people concerned. Chapman, of course, is one of the very worst examples (we all know that when he says "correct", he actually means "in agreement with me").

Chapman doesn't really have a problem with people posting incorrect stuff: he wouldn't mind someone claiming/thinking that the Earth was flat. What he *does* have a problem with is people daring to come on here and make his arguments look stupid by posting stuff which he purportedly disagrees with, and knows he can't refute. That is why he's so desperate to censor such posts, whereas he couldn't really care less about censoring barking flat Earthers, because he knows they're really incorrect and that it's obvious to everyone without correction being needed.

Of course, if Chapman actually believed what he posted, and didn't just spout it as part of an anti-motorist agenda, he wouldn't have a problem with people arguing with him, as he would be confident that he was able to refute their arguments. He only wants to censor them instead because he knows he *can't* refute what they say, because he knows they're right.