Nuxx:4e2810db$0$2942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk

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!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e2810db$0$2942$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: n+1 Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:43:22 +0100 References:    Lines: 98 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 04c921fd.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=FM3^?>T2jPbj^Jm2E4:Z\iYjZGX^207Pk` On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:14:00 +0100, Judith  > wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2011 21:19:16 +0100, Bertie Wooster  wrote: >> >>> Amoung cycling enthusiasts, such as myself, there is a general formula >>> for the number of bicycles desired: >>> >>> If n is the number of bicycles owned, n+1 is the number desired. >>> >>> I have just taken delivery of a genuine Chinese cargo tricycle. OK - >>> so it is not strictly a bicycle, but it is close enough to satisfy the >>> formula. >>> >>> It cost £40, shipping was a further £160! I have not yet assembled it, >>> but you can be assured that I will assemble it in my new kitchen, and >>> provide plenty of kitchen porn. >> >> >> Hello "Bertie" - (may I call you that?) >> >> I wonder what name you used to use - you are obviously quite familiar with some >> of the traits and habits of previous URC regulars. >> >> (Don't forget the Marmite) > > Hullo "Clive George" - (may I call you that?)

Poor, poor Clivey. He's had to endure almost as many Clive Georgeries as the pitiful, wretched, completely innocent victim Chapman has. Did you know that the latter has even had to start using PGP now, such was the number of cruel forgeries that he was having to endure? Can you believe it? I can't think why he in particular gets targetted so much...what's he ever done to anyone?

> I used my real name previously, Tom Crispin.

Ah. Hadn't spotted that. Thanks for filling us in. Although you're going to have to cop a long reply now (even by my standards)! ;-)

> However, I found that > cyclist friends were asking me what I was doing replying to various > 'trolls' on Usenet. Unable to give a coherent answer, I decided to > stop posting under my real name and use a pseudonym instead.

It's a great shame you didn't just tell them to FOAD and that you'll do what you jolly well like. Why are these people even reading the threads concerned? Was one of them Chapman (as if I need to ask)? Are you going to let him order you about after how he treated you re "Lou Knee"? Do any of the others post to URCM? Too boring there is it, so they have to start stirring it here?

In any case, now that you've revealed who you really are, is there any point in continuing to post with an alias? Go on, please: we want big old cuddly "Tom Crispin" back. The intolerant car-hating twats who attempt to "deal" with critics of their beloved anti-car measures (e.g. speed cameras) and advocates of cycle helmets with a wall of silence (because for some strange reason they lose the debate whenever they do try to reply), and who send whining, backstabbing emails to those who keep replying to "ask" them to join in with the silence, are worthless scum who have conclusively shown that they have no answer to their opponents' inconvenient truths, and so resort to pathetic schoolyard bullying tactics because they're too small-minded and arrogant to accept the truth isn't how they desperately want it to be, and that they've been wrong all this time. They see the "not responding" method as the only way out.

People such as you and Simon Mason have consistently shown yourselves to be a cut above said scum...you clearly sincerely believe that what you say is the truth, and so are prepared to defend it, unlike the psycholists who resort to sneaky and unpleasant tactics once they realise they're not going to win. You should be proud of yourselves, and they have no right to lecture you. Please don't go along with their nonsense...please continue to be your own man (i.e. "Tom Crispin"). You've kept going for so long that it would be a pity to give in now.

I'm now worried that this is why we seem to be seeing less of the likes of Rob Morley, Clive George and Ian Smith on URC lately; that the more intolerant psycholists are also constantly emailing them with implied threats along the lines of "If you keep 'enabling trolls' by replying to them on URC then we'll have to consider you as the enemy". It's the kind of fuckwitted, underhand thing that the likes of Chapman and "Burt The Bike" would do.

URC has been going very nicely without them...why couldn't they just leave it? It has become a first on the Internet in that we have an open, uncensored, balanced, constructive and civilised dialogue between those on different sides of the camera, helmet and other "hot button" debates...why does that bother the psycholists so much? Why do they feel so threatened by it? Why the determination to banish *all* public discussion, *anywhere*, which allows "banned" opinions? Tom, Rob, Clive, Ian, Simon, and anyone else who's been emailed: please don't respond to this pathetic blackmail. Please ask yourself why the emailers are bothering and whether it's any of their business whatsoever. Please carry on contributing (with the same names) to URC as it is, and don't let those who are trying to destroy it (after accusing others of exactly the same thing!) succeed.