Nuxx:C6cd4412-6894-44ea-9e64-dbfc65cd8e90@c29g2000yqd.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!c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: uk.rec.cycling.moderated prediction Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:04:46 -0700 (PDT) References: <1j3k153.1yppdwb1yevqv4N%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk> <006a2402$0$26516$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>  <00a72aca$0$1798$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>  <00a77c97$0$853$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>   Lines: 55 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.153.43.65 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248894287 3689 127.0.0.1 (29 Jul 2009 19:04:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:04:47 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.153.43.65; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.12) Gecko/2009070611 Firefox/3.0.12 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4406 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:721125

On Jul 29, 5:44=A0pm, Ace  wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:06:53 +0100, "Mr Benn"  > wrote: > > > > >"Nick"  wrote in message > >news:00a77c97$0$853$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com... > >> However my advice would be to start by whitlisting everyone who has po= sted > >> regularly to u.r.c and hasn't been a pain in the arse. That will help = the > >> group get up and running. You can always change your mind later and be > >> more exclusive if it turns out the group is popular. > > >Does someone promoting the use of cycle helmets and fluorescent clothing > >qualify as someone who is a "pain in the ass"? > > Personally I think anyone _continually_ promoting any controversial > viewpoint is a PITA, yes. Once it's been done to death, let it lie.

Well, there are many here who just love to apply the above - but only to viewpoints that they oppose. Hence, you're not allowed to claim that speed cameras cost lives because that's been "done to death", but strangely, none of the regulars seem to complain when (yet again) someone says something that's based on the assumption that "speed cameras save lives", "speed kills", "speed limits are incredibly important" or some similar anti-motorist bollocks.

Of course, like so many other things round here, it's really just a case of regulars wanting to censor particular points of view that they find "awkward" because they can't refute them but they don't want them to be true. "Done to death" is just one of the many excuses used to advocate such censorship. No doubt the "moderators" of URCC have got a nice list of excuses ready that they can use to nuke posts that contain the "wrong" opinions without having to admit that they're actually just indulging in censorship.

I wonder why we're getting all this subterfuge? Why aren't the "moderators" being honest about wanting to censor certain points of view? Hey, maybe it's because they know that if they *were* honest about it, the new group would never get through. In other words, they know damn well that URCC has no legitimate place on usenet, and they're trying to sneak it through by using deception. Despicable, especially when you consider how much they get on their high horses about others.

Anyone who has any principles, and cares remotely about honesty and free speech, has a duty to vote NO to uk.rec.cycling.censored, no matter how anti-motorist they may be. It's possible to wage war against motorists without doing it in a dishonest fashion (although it has to be said that most car-haters *do* seem to conduct their anti- car campaigning less than honestly...I suppose that's probably because it takes a particular kind of obnoxious, duplicitous person to hate cars in the first place, in the main part at least).