Why not make trolling illegal?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:20:35 +0100, John Benn wrote:

"Judith" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:56:20 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller

wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:23:22 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

Wicks is a cyclist. Need I say more?

uk.rec.cycling is here to discuss bicycling. Need I say more?



When was the last time that *you* discussed cycling here by any stretch
of the
imagination?

99% of your posts are nothing to do with cycling at all.

Have I said? : you are a ****wit

Most of his posts mention fish

Yum yum.



--
Never trust a man in a suit.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 20:32:09 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

On 10/07/2012 19:43, Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
"Cassandra" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 15:19:00 -0700 (PDT), M Wicks
wrote:

The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy
two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls,
who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up
cyclists' and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be sad
enough to spend their free time doing this is another discussion, but
that is the situation at any rate. Group A trolls include 'Dave' and
'Judith'.

While trolling is fun, the trolls of uk.rec.cycling have made the
group unusable for people with a normal interest in cycling. They have
therefore crossed the line from trolls to anti-social ****s.

So start a new, moderated, newsgroup.


They did - and it was terminally boring.

No it isn't



--
Never trust a man in a suit.

Removed uk.legal - doesn't seem to be appropriate for there.

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:32:12 +0100, Steve Firth wrote:
M Wicks wrote:

The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
which has gone on for several years.

Yes, the names of the trolls include Doug "Don't Call Me Bollen" Bollen,
SquashedFlea, Guy "s/u/a/" Chapman, Phil W (anchor) Lee, Ian "Whacko"
Jackson and Simon "Slimeon" Mason. Now it seems that you want to add
your name to the list.

Can you tell me the last time some of those have posted to
uk.rec.cycling and the number of posts over the last 30 days?

Whatever you think of their previous records, or if you think they were
initiating the problem, or exacerbating it by responding unwisely, or
just people you don't like, they do not seem to be causing any kerfuffle
at the moment. Unlike some others who do not seem to have an interest in
the focus of the group.


--
Andy Leighton =
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:46:21 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 16:20:35 +0100, John Benn wrote:

"Judith" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:56:20 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller

wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:23:22 +0100, Dave - Cyclists VOR wrote:

Wicks is a cyclist. Need I say more?

uk.rec.cycling is here to discuss bicycling. Need I say more?



When was the last time that *you* discussed cycling here by any stretch
of the
imagination?

99% of your posts are nothing to do with cycling at all.

Have I said? : you are a ****wit

Most of his posts mention fish

Yum yum.

Silly old sod

--
You are Peter Keller MB ChB FANZCA - a silly old sod in his late sixties in New Zealand, and ICMFP
A credit to the Medical Profession - ffs

On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:45:53 +0000 (UTC), Peter Keller
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:24:52 +0100, Judith wrote:

you are a ****wit

As that the best you can do you vorephilic ****? Why not the greater
honour of grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john you clouted
boggish foot-licking tand dankish clack-dish plonker?



Silly old sod
--
You are Peter Keller MB ChB FANZCA - a silly old sod in his late sixties in New Zealand, and ICMFP
A credit to the Medical Profession - ffs

On Jul 11, 12:22*am, JNugent wrote:
[...]
I wouldn't have mentioned any of this but for your flaming another poster's
grammar.
Ah, but I wasn't flaming another poster's grammar.

Really?

What does "But then its ungrammatical" mean (ignoring the missing apostrophe)?


I reckon the meaning is clear enough, but consider the context as
well. I first said "But then its ungrammatical" in my July 10
response to "BartC", who had suggested that "Cyclists VOR" might mean
"Cyclists Voice of Reason".

At the time, I saw no reason to believe that "Dave - Cyclists VOR"
might be ungrammatical in his utterances, so I adduced the
ungrammatical nature of BartC's suggested translation "Cyclists Voice
of Reason" as a reason to be skeptical of that translation. Oh how
wrong I was!

So far from flaming Dave's grammar, I was in fact defending him
against what I saw as BartC's unwarranted imputation that he might be
prone to ungrammatical utterances. I would like now to apologise most
profusely to BartC for my failure to appreciate his sagacity and
insight in the matter.

I did try and explain that in the first two sentences quoted below.
Obviously not very effectively.


I was expressing
mild skepticism about an earlier poster's suggestion that VOR might
mean 'Voice of Reason', on the basis that 'Cyclists Voice of Reason'
seemed to be ungrammatical, because it lacked punctuation. My
underlying assumption was that it would have been correctly
punctuated, had it meant 'Voice of Reason', and the fact that it
wasn't punctated, indicated that it probably didn't mean 'Voice of
Reason'.
I did consider the possibility of *'Cyclists' Voice of Reason', as you
discuss, but unlike you, judged it unlikely that the gentleman
concerned wished to be seen as the Voice of Reason for cyclists in
general. It seemed to me more likely that he saw himself as
representing the interests of a sub-genre, the reluctant cyclist.
Cyclists who were on the verge of realising the foolishness of
cycling, and who might therefore be more open and sympathetic to the
message of Dave.
Though his message is a little ambiguous. When he writes: 'Many people
barely recognise the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport ...',
is he expressing the hope that, in time, many people will come to more
fully *appreciate the bicycle as a legitimate mode of transport? Or
not?

No.

Ian Smith seems to disagree. Posting earlier, he quoted from
Lancaster University's learned paper:

"It is widely recognised that an increase in walking and cycling for
short journeys in urban areas could significantly reduce traffic
congestion, improve the quality of the urban environment, promote
improved personal health, and contribute to a reduction in carbon
emissions."
http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/...nd_cycling.php

However, "Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in this thread on Jul 10, at 9:20
pm:

"Its a mission. If I can rid the world of cyclists my living will not
have been in vain."

So "Dave - Cyclists VOR" seems to be a bit off-message in relation to
Lancaster University's paper.

Which leads me to wonder if "Dave - Cyclists VOR" is the same as "Dave
Horton - Lancaster University", or a different Dave.

And I must say it is looking unlikely that "Dave - Cyclists VOR" will
succeed in his mission of ridding the world of cyclists - there must
be half-a-billion in China alone - so, sadly it seems that his life
will most likely prove, by his own estimation, to have been in vain.

I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for Dave now.

As is now fairly well-known, he is quoting from a learned paper published
at Lancaster University.


Indeed, as I now gather. I am posting and reading from uk.legal, so
you will forgive me, if I am not entirely au fait with the denizens of
uk.rec.cycling and the learned papers they are wont to discuss.


And why does he mention Lancaster University?

That's because (see above) a paper on the topic of general population views
of cycling and cyclists was published by a researcher (or fellow) of that
august institution.

Does he think that will
lend greater weight to his opinions (whatever they are) on cycling?

As you have no doubt already realised, that is a silly question to ask of me.

You'll have to ask him.


It was more of a rhetorical question.
[...]

M Wicks wrote:
The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy
two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls,
who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up cyclists'
and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be sad enough to
spend their free time doing this is another discussion, but that is
the situation at any rate. Group A trolls include 'Dave' and 'Judith'.

Group B consists of the slightly more 'subtle' trolls, who pretend to
be on the newsgroup for legitimate and respectable reasons, but in the
end are just motivated by exactly the same anti-cycling sentiment as
Group A. This group includes 'JNugent', 'NM' and of course the fake
cyclist 'John Benn'. In many ways I find this group more frustrating,
as they so persistently deny that they are present for anything but
the most noble of reasons, despite making it obvious what they really
think by always, no matter what, siding against the cyclist(s) in any
given scenario.

Anyway, there is further reading elsewhere on the ongoing and very
specific problems that uk.rec.cycling has unfortunately experienced.
We are trying to do something about it. Various legal remedies are on
the table. But these rely on showing that some kind of 'harassment' of
individual cyclists has occurred, which is tricky. And it is
understood by all concerned that the 'harassment' accusations are just
the method by which we are having to bring these trolls to justice,
and that the real reason why they are being taken to court is to
punish them for trolling and destroying a valuable and once pleasant
newsgroup with their constant, vicious jibes and their worthless and
incorrect opinions, all of which are carefully calculated to stoke the
fire and cause maximum friction.

It occurs to me that these 'harassment' accusations are not the way to
do it, firstly because it is difficult to make them stick, and
secondly because it does not seem entirely honest to accuse someone of
'harassment' of individuals when really you're trying to punish them
for trolling newsgroups. So it seems to me that the best solution, at
least for uk.rec.cycling, is simply to make trolling illegal.

'What about free speech?', I hear you ask. Well, it is generally
accepted that sometimes we need to make exceptions to allowing free
speech where it is in the public interest, e.g. with hate speech. So
why not make another exception with trolling? How exactly is it in the
public interest to allow the likes of 'Dave' and 'Judith' to
systematically and irrevocably destroy valuable Internet resources?
Isn't it much more in the public interest to stop them? Your favourite
newsgroup or forum could be next if we do not stop these worthless
individuals from spreading their hate. Trolling is on the increase as
more and more idiots spend more and more time online, and so society
needs to act robustly and quickly in order to show that it is not
going to tolerate such extremely antisocial behaviour.

I will be writing to my MP about this subject, using uk.rec.cycling as
my example. I implore you to do the same. I will not rest until
someone posting 'Why not wear a helmet?' on uk.rec.cycling with faux
innocence, or going on about 'Road Tax' yet again, can expect to be
brought before magistrates and punished to the fullest extent of the
law. That seems entirely reasonable. You are not exempt from the
requirement to conduct yourself as a decent, law-abiding human being
just because you are behind a keyboard. We generally believe that
people who go round trying to make everyone else miserable deserve
their comeuppance, and so 'Dave' richly deserves his, but 'JNugent'
does as well. Trolling, whether 'subtle' or blatant, needs to be made
illegal. And after reading my post, I know that at least some of you
will agree.

Thanks,
M Wicks


So you want a cycling newsgroup that only discusses what you want with
no dissenting voices, your group would be boring.

F Murtz wrote:
M Wicks wrote:
The newsgroup uk.rec.cycling is suffering from a trolling problem
which has gone on for several years. The trolls seem to mostly occupy
two groups. Group A consists of the more vicious and abrasive trolls,
who are quite open about being on uk.rec.cycling to 'wind up
cyclists' and 'destroy uk.rec.cycling'. Quite why anyone would be
sad enough to spend their free time doing this is another
discussion, but that is the situation at any rate. Group A trolls
include 'Dave' and 'Judith'. Group B consists of the slightly more
'subtle' trolls, who pretend to
be on the newsgroup for legitimate and respectable reasons, but in
the end are just motivated by exactly the same anti-cycling
sentiment as Group A. This group includes 'JNugent', 'NM' and of
course the fake cyclist 'John Benn'. In many ways I find this group
more frustrating, as they so persistently deny that they are present
for anything but the most noble of reasons, despite making it
obvious what they really think by always, no matter what, siding
against the cyclist(s) in any given scenario.

Anyway, there is further reading elsewhere on the ongoing and very
specific problems that uk.rec.cycling has unfortunately experienced.
We are trying to do something about it. Various legal remedies are on
the table. But these rely on showing that some kind of 'harassment'
of individual cyclists has occurred, which is tricky. And it is
understood by all concerned that the 'harassment' accusations are
just the method by which we are having to bring these trolls to
justice, and that the real reason why they are being taken to court
is to punish them for trolling and destroying a valuable and once
pleasant newsgroup with their constant, vicious jibes and their
worthless and incorrect opinions, all of which are carefully
calculated to stoke the fire and cause maximum friction.

It occurs to me that these 'harassment' accusations are not the way
to do it, firstly because it is difficult to make them stick, and
secondly because it does not seem entirely honest to accuse someone
of 'harassment' of individuals when really you're trying to punish
them for trolling newsgroups. So it seems to me that the best
solution, at least for uk.rec.cycling, is simply to make trolling
illegal. 'What about free speech?', I hear you ask. Well, it is generally
accepted that sometimes we need to make exceptions to allowing free
speech where it is in the public interest, e.g. with hate speech. So
why not make another exception with trolling? How exactly is it in
the public interest to allow the likes of 'Dave' and 'Judith' to
systematically and irrevocably destroy valuable Internet resources?
Isn't it much more in the public interest to stop them? Your
favourite newsgroup or forum could be next if we do not stop these
worthless individuals from spreading their hate. Trolling is on the
increase as more and more idiots spend more and more time online,
and so society needs to act robustly and quickly in order to show
that it is not going to tolerate such extremely antisocial behaviour.

I will be writing to my MP about this subject, using uk.rec.cycling
as my example. I implore you to do the same. I will not rest until
someone posting 'Why not wear a helmet?' on uk.rec.cycling with faux
innocence, or going on about 'Road Tax' yet again, can expect to be
brought before magistrates and punished to the fullest extent of the
law. That seems entirely reasonable. You are not exempt from the
requirement to conduct yourself as a decent, law-abiding human being
just because you are behind a keyboard. We generally believe that
people who go round trying to make everyone else miserable deserve
their comeuppance, and so 'Dave' richly deserves his, but 'JNugent'
does as well. Trolling, whether 'subtle' or blatant, needs to be made
illegal. And after reading my post, I know that at least some of you
will agree.

Thanks,
M Wicks


So you want a cycling newsgroup that only discusses what you want with
no dissenting voices, your group would be boring.

and the proof is at uk.rec.cycling.moderated

On 11/07/2012 13:15, pensive hamster wrote:
On Jul 11, 12:22 am, JNugent wrote:
[...]
I wouldn't have mentioned any of this but for your flaming another poster's
grammar.
Ah, but I wasn't flaming another poster's grammar.

Really?

What does "But then its ungrammatical" mean (ignoring the missing apostrophe)?


I reckon the meaning is clear enough

Thank **** for that. We can ignore all this bollox.


Ian Smith seems to disagree. Posting earlier, he quoted from
Lancaster University's learned paper:

Smith is a well know bell end.

"It is widely recognised that an increase in walking and cycling for
short journeys in urban areas could significantly reduce traffic
congestion, improve the quality of the urban environment, promote
improved personal health, and contribute to a reduction in carbon
emissions."
http://www.lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/...nd_cycling.php

It may be widely recognised that cycling "could" achieve those aims -
trouble is nobody wants to cycle. That's what the research found.

However, "Dave - Cyclists VOR" wrote in this thread on Jul 10, at 9:20
pm:

"Its a mission. If I can rid the world of cyclists my living will not
have been in vain."

So "Dave - Cyclists VOR" seems to be a bit off-message in relation to
Lancaster University's paper.

Which leads me to wonder if "Dave - Cyclists VOR" is the same as "Dave
Horton - Lancaster University", or a different Dave.

Dave Horton is himself a rabid cyclist. To his credit, when he found
the truth, although he didn't like it, he published it.

And I must say it is looking unlikely that "Dave - Cyclists VOR" will
succeed in his mission of ridding the world of cyclists - there must
be half-a-billion in China alone - so, sadly it seems that his life
will most likely prove, by his own estimation, to have been in vain.

I'm not brown bread yet. Come the revolution citizen...

I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for Dave now.

As is now fairly well-known, he is quoting from a learned paper published
at Lancaster University.


Indeed, as I now gather. I am posting and reading from uk.legal, so
you will forgive me, if I am not entirely au fait with the denizens of
uk.rec.cycling and the learned papers they are wont to discuss.

Not au fait with much by the look of it.


And why does he mention Lancaster University?

That's because (see above) a paper on the topic of general population views
of cycling and cyclists was published by a researcher (or fellow) of that
august institution.

Does he think that will
lend greater weight to his opinions (whatever they are) on cycling?

As you have no doubt already realised, that is a silly question to ask of me.

You'll have to ask him.


It was more of a rhetorical question.
[...]




--
Dave - Cyclists VOR. "Many people barely recognise the bicycle as a
legitimate mode of transport; it is either a toy for children or a
vehicle fit only for the poor and/or strange," Dave Horton - Lancaster
University

On Jul 11, 7:55*pm, Dave - Cyclists VOR
wrote:

[big snip]

And you hope not to be confused with someone who cares?