Nuxx:704cf944-5afe-4cf9-bf15-c2c6ad2fe656@p16g2000vbo.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!p16g2000vbo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <704cf944-5afe-4cf9-bf15-c2c6ad2fe656@p16g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM - advice required please - a ban is pending!!! Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:01:18 -0700 (PDT) References: <8vua2nFhi4U3@mid.individual.net>  <8vue1vFjb9U1@mid.individual.net> <1p0kp6ppesi2amgmf28idplt7a9lfcg11i@4ax.com> <8vugr1FaaoU1@mid.individual.net>  <1oMmp.4426$ZU7.3760@newsfe11.ams2>   <902ntoF2pnU1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 66 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1302087678 7240 127.0.0.1 (6 Apr 2011 11:01:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:01:18 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: p16g2000vbo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4843 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:40408

On Apr 6, 9:52=A0am, "The Todal"  wrote: > Andy Leighton wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 16:10:31 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar > >  wrote: > >> No-one, least of all Matt B, can be allowed to show that actually, > >> making things harder for motorists is not an essential part of making > >> things safer for cyclists. =A0Why won't you let anyone show that? > > > Because it is off topic in a cycling group. =A0I don't care if things > > are made harder, easier*, or down-right impossible for motorists. > > What happens to motorists is of very little interest to me as a > > cyclist. > > > I don't think that anyone would mind you (or Matt) making similar > > points in uk.transport where it would be on-topic (if not necessarily > > correct). > > > * Not quite true - I do care if things are made easier, not that it > > would make it on topic. =A0There are too many people whose driving > > falls far below the standard one would expect. =A0Making it very much > > easier, for example no licensing, would increase that number and make > > it worse for everyone. > > I don't understand this rather extremist view of what is or is not on top= ic > for a moderated cycling group. There must be quite a few of us who believ= e > that anything to do with roads and cars does have some relevance to > cycling - the average cyclist is at considerable risk of death or serious > injury every time he cycles on a busy road. =A0Is there some sort of > subliminal fear that motorists could take over the cycling group, force t= he > cyclists out of the group the same way that they force cyclists off the > road, and inflict their petroleum fumes on all the group's users while th= ey > sit at their computers? > > Why not just allow most posts (so long as they are acceptable in other > relevant respects - courteous, not excessively repetitive, not defamatory= ) > and see if anyone is interested enough to post a response? =A0If nobody i= s > interested, the thread dies. If people are interested, then you have a > worthwhile conversation.

Very sensible: far too sensible for it to ever catch on with the current regime. (Thereagain I would say that since I'm the same person as you....)

It's interesting to note that most if not all supporters of the current "moderators" say that they see URCM as a way of returning to the "golden era" of URC. Yet during that "golden era", discussion of motorists featured heavily. Crucially, of course, this discussion was usually anti-motorist in nature, and that is the nub of the matter: they don't mind discussion of motorists at all, and in fact often initiate and participate in it, but it has to all be anti-motorist and negative. No-one is allowed to stick up for drivers, even (or rather publicly admit to thinking that, they simply say "No motoring discussion" whenever it suits them (and turn a blind eye when someone like Chapman or Simon Mason posts something negative about drivers, which is about every 5 minutes).
 * especially*) if they actually have a point. But since "they" can't

As ever, it comes down to the same thing: particular opinions are banned. The only thing that changes is the excuse used to enforce that ban.