Nuxx:43138553-4f9b-4b98-9260-af57840950b9@r10g2000yqa.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!r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <43138553-4f9b-4b98-9260-af57840950b9@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Alas, poor Usenet (was Re: 2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup 	uk.rec.cycling.moderated) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:33:54 -0700 (PDT) References: <-9udnRM4VJX6cNrXnZ2dnUVZ8nOdnZ2d@bt.com>   <6efe2543-bd97-4b17-997a-a8a0571d1639@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>  <8b4c318f-ca93-4399-a432-d7d435a45fd5@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>     <5d3k45dugldqeupqopaj7q4obtpp4rc7ct@4ax.com> Lines: 64 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 1246390434 2389 127.0.0.1 (30 Jun 2009 19:33:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:33:54 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r10g2000yqa.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: 4912 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:54749 uk.rec.cycling:6189

On Jun 30, 2:54=A0pm, Geoff Berrow  wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:45:21 +0100, "Wm..." > >  wrote: > >>In what way did the moderators of ulym not take the job seriously? > > >Note my use of the word "active"; as in doing something. > > >>In that system there was no moderation on content and so the job was > >>largely automated anyway. > > >I know that, you know that, etc. > > >I simply don't get your previous references to urcm being a likely > >failure because ulym has failed. =A0The groups seem completely different > >to me. =A0cyclists may want to talk to each other in a moderated group > >more than people from yorkshire do or did. =A0Please don't vote against, > >Geoff. > > Well here are my thoughts to date. > > I'm generally opposed to moderation in principle. > > This moderated group is being proposed solely because of a few > annoying posters. > > There are groups which have improved simply because a moderated group > was /suggested/. > > Those moderated groups that succeed tend to cover emotive subjects > where a lot of people have very strong opinions. (I'm not convinced > this is /generally/ the case with cycling or at least it's not in the > same league as religion or homosexuality).

Of course you're right. Cycling itself is a relatively uncontroversial activity. But cycling, and URC in particular, has attracted many car-haters who have decided that they're going to (ab) use cycling as a front for their anti-car campaigning, and they are the ones who inject controversy with their support of anti-car measures (even when they know that such measures are killing people) and their crazed, borderline psychopathic treatment of anyone who dares to oppose such measures or expose them for what they are. Oh, and their obsessive, tireless efforts to censor such people (which is of course why "moderation" has been proposed at all).

There's nothing controversial about a group of genuine cyclists having genuine cycling-related discussion. It's the presence of the car- haters like "Just zis Guy, you know?" and "Spindrift" which ups the ante and causes all the friction. It would seem a lot easier to get rid of the controverial posters, rather than creating a "moderated" group with the sole intention of silencing those who dare to tell the truth about anti-car measures, helmets, etc, thereby failing completely to tackle the root cause of the problem, and failing in the end to solve the problem at all, or save URC (quite the opposite in fact).

Cycling, and URC, would be as uncontroversial as any other harmless recreational activity were it not for the car-haters abusing the cause for their own ends. This "moderation" sham is a useless, and thoroughly dishonest, waste of everyone's time, and will just play right into the hands of the car-haters. And the branding of anyone with certain opinions as "trolls" is nothing more than pathetic name- calling, and an insult to those who have had to create moderated groups due to suffering genuine trolling.