Nuxx:6ba4515b-0566-4ee5-a0c1-1b6101c41dd2@n8g2000vbb.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!n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <6ba4515b-0566-4ee5-a0c1-1b6101c41dd2@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Moderaiton (was What is "Primary Position"?) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:16:25 -0700 (PDT) References:      <298e5791-e4ec-41a9-be77-67dcc2fd8f2a@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> <4b9s35dqrh0mg8ldsf822uddt7ls1vqsf2@4ax.com> Lines: 55 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.150.242 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1245608185 13226 127.0.0.1 (21 Jun 2009 18:16:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 18:16:25 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.150.242; 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: 4529 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:711012

On Jun 21, 1:27=A0pm, "Just zis Guy, you know?"  wrote: > > it is quite possible that judith > genuinely is unable to accept any information inconsistent with her > personal prejudices and therefore sincerely believes she is right.

...whereas you don't sincerely believe you're right about speed cameras, you just pretend to think they save lives because you hate motorists. (What a patronising load of rubbish BTW, though that goes without saying with your posts.)

> I suspect that in the proposed moderated group the original > disinformation will get through, as will corrections to it, but > continual tendentious argumentation will be blocked.

So does that mean that your continual assertion that wearing helmets doesn't save lives will be blocked? No, of course not: you only meant that continued reiteration of a point should be blocked where *you* disagree with that point. As far as you're concerned, an opinion doesn't have to be proven to be wrong in order to be blocked when repeated; it only has to be in disagreement with what *you* think.

As ever, you refer to your opponents as if they are objectively wrong, when really that's just your own, *very* subjective (not to mention agenda-led) opinion. All the above crap rests upon the assumption that you're right about everything. If you *were* right, it would still be an arrogant assumption to make; the fact that you are so often wrong, and have been proven wrong many times, just makes it even worse.

If moderation of the hypothetical new group is even remotely even- handed, I think you'll be in for a hell of a shock. You won't like it when reiterating points is treated the same whether you agree with that point or not; you won't like it when you saying "Fuck off, troll" is treated the same as one of your opponents saying it. Clearly, you're secretly hoping that the "moderation" will be biased in favour of your anti-car position; I can't wait to see your reaction when that turns out not to be the case (and I'm optimistic that, with possibly a few initial exceptions, there won't be bias to any great degree...while some moderators may *want* to be biased, they're smart enough to realise that if they *are* biased, the new group won't last very long, and they want that even less than they want to tolerate their opponents' opinions).

I'm almost sorry that you're not going to be a moderator. You simply wouldn't be able to help abusing your status: you'd obviously be extremely biased, and you would also use your moderator tools to censor your opponents when you were involved in arguments with them (you know, like you've done many times on Wikipedia). Therefore it wouldn't be at all long until your moderator status was humiliatingly revoked. I suspect that that, along with the fear that you wouldn't be voted in at all, is the real reason why you don't want to be a moderator in the first place (the "I haven't got time" rubbish very obviously being a feeble excuse).