uk.rec.cycling.moderated

On Wed, 27 May 2009 15:50:55 +0100, Geoff Berrow
wrote:

On Wed, 27 May 2009 15:22:00 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

one with sufficient interest to put in any effort. Ed was the only
person who was prepared to do /anything/.

You've read many of Henrietta's posts in nan-au. She did nothing for
the us.* hierarchy except bring in the trolls and turn the hierarchy
into a flamefest, the likes of which Usenet is unlikely to see again.
Twice the Usenet Cabal (tinc) came to her defense and she fought off
the heavyweight trolls, but once the us.* groupers turned on her, and
faced with a long running illness, she gave up and handed the
hierarchy over to the uma groupers and edward ohare. The hierarchy is
now a smoking pit, Peter Ross and Daryl Hunt are the only ones to hang
out there, intermittently flaming the new us.* committee for their
lack of action.

What lack of action? What action do you see being taken by the uk
committee?

The few times I have subscribed to unnc I have been impressed with how
effectively the uk.* committee guide people. I expect that
considerable help and guidance has been given to Ian Jackson over his
proposal to create a new group, uk.rec.cycling.moderated. That said,
it has not stopped him from using his killfile in the pre-RFD
discussion. I seem to recall Henrietta doing something similar as
hierarchy maintainer: didn't she have you killfiled at one stage?

The fact of the matter is that HKT took too much action,
mistakenly thinking that she should in some way be responsible for the
hierarchy instead of simply facilitating what people wanted. In the
end she was on a hiding to nothing because there really was no need
for the hierarchy at all because most merkins feel that the Big 8 is
theirs anyway.

Yes, I have noticed that - a bit like the way they treat the World in
real life.

I was there at the beginning with Ed, when he first created the alias
edward ohare, named after the WWII fighter pilot. He created the
alias with the sole purpose of trolling us.military.army, something I
was doing at the time following repeated 'friendly fire' attacks on
British troops following the First Gulf War. That his troll persona
is now a committee member for the us.* hierarchy, with you as their
British advisor, is bizarre to say the least, and quite an achievement
for a troll persona.

Well I've had long discussions with ed on and offline and I can tell
you that no one put in more work for that hierarchy than him and it
certainly went far beyond trolling. We may have been a bizarre bunch
but in the end we were the only people who cared enough to do
anything. Sadly, by the time we had the power to do anything it was
too late.

I know - ed was the driving force behind change in the us.* hierarchy.
Who would believe it - war hero to usenet hero.

The us.* hierarchy suffered from the general decline in Usenet, pure
and simple.

The us.* hierarchy never achieved.

True, but then, even if it had been allowed to, I doubt things would
be much different now.

Maybe - we shall never know now.

I thought you said you were going away for a week, around 4 days ago?

When are you going to share "the joke" with us? Or are you going to
come clean and admit that there is no joke and that you foolishly took
Crapman's word for it (and, most disturbingly of all, would do exactly
the same thing again in a heartbeat)? Why do *you* think he won't
answer the question "Have you ever posted as Lou Knee?"

On May 27, 7:21*pm, Keith T wrote:
jms wrote:

This is the unnecessary sniping which takes place all of the time in
urc.

I would suggest that Guy Chapman has also adequately demonstrated in
one simple post his unsuitability as a moderator.

'Nuff said

Keith, I don't think you've really grasped the unwritten URC "rules"
yet. You're supposed to come on here and take the "side" of the
"regulars". Thereafter, whenever you comment you are supposed to
defend the "regulars" no matter what they say, and have a go at the
"trolls" no matter what *they* say. Presumably you have witnessed
this behaviour countless times already (c.f. the ludicrous and
pathetic defending of Chapman even when he is quite obviously wrong/
lying/etc, and the abject and petty refusal to ever concede that
anything I/Judith/etc say is right, even when it's entirely apparent).

You seem to have got into this rather peculiar habit of actually
analysing what people say with reference to the facts and passing
comment based on what they have said, rather than who they are and
what "side" they're on. I can assure you that this approach will not
go down well with the "moderators", and if you carry on defending
"trolls" or opposing "regulars", you will find yourself on the
"trolls" list before you can say "car-hater".

Just a bit of friendly advice; I hope for your sake that you take it
on board. (Paradoxically, taking this advice on board would involve
replying and saying what a load of crap it was, because of course one
of the "trolls" posted it....)

On May 27, 5:44*pm, Mike wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2009 19:03:28 +0100, jms
wrote:

Those who do not wish to see my views may add my name to their
kill-file.

Duly done. Sad that *every* entry in my killfile for u.r.c is related
to you (or should that be 'it')

You mean I'm not? Better keep that quiet...only a "troll" wouldn't
have me in their killfile....

There should be no need for this proposed moderated group

There isn't. Get rid of Chapman and Spindrift, and infinitely better
results will be achieved with a tiny fraction of the effort.

you sadly are the prime driver for needing one.

Chapman and Spindrift are the root causes. They attract the trouble;
they are the nucleus of the "we pretend to be pro-cyclist but actually
we're just 'secretly' anti-car" bunch (which would just melt away
without them as most are just sycophants of Chapman); they are the
main reasons why there is so much controversy about anti-motorist
measures etc in this group when really there should just be
straightforward, non-politically charged discussion about cycling for
the main part.

You can get rid of the "trolls", but more will always just take their
place. Get rid of Chapman and Spindrift and the "trolls" will stop
coming, because the group will have lost what made it so
controversial: two of the most despised and infamous car-hating
troublemakers on the whole UK transport-related Internet. The group
would then be little more controversial than a knitting group, and who
would bother "trolling" a group like that?

On Wed, 27 May 2009 19:21:15 +0100, Keith T wrote:

I would suggest that Guy Chapman has also adequately demonstrated in
one simple post his unsuitability as a moderator.

'Nuff said

It's remarkable the extent to which judith fails to comprehend the
difference between me and the caricature of me she has in her head.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.

On Wed, 27 May 2009 11:46:47 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
wrote:

I thought you said you were going away for a week, around 4 days ago?

That's right, I did say that - I didn't go. I couldn't bear the
thought of a 12 hour drive to Glen Afric, though the thought of a
week's hillwalking to lose the stress of city living was a big pull.

When are you going to share "the joke" with us? Or are you going to
come clean and admit that there is no joke and that you foolishly took
Crapman's word for it (and, most disturbingly of all, would do exactly
the same thing again in a heartbeat)? Why do *you* think he won't
answer the question "Have you ever posted as Lou Knee?"

To wind you up, perhaps.

Nuxx Bar wrote:
You seem to have got into this rather peculiar habit of actually
analysing what people say with reference to the facts and passing
comment based on what they have said, rather than who they are and
what "side" they're on.


I know, it's a bugger isn't it?
I prefer the splinters up me bum ;-)

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

Can I suggest that any moderator must have subscribed to this ng for at
least 5 years - that way we should get moderators who remember what it was
like when the posters were interested in Cycling! A lot of good information
was posted about cycles, route, repairs etc.

I have been following the group but haven't posted for a while because of
the amount of rubbish which was spouted.


"Alistair Gunn" wrote in message
...
In uk.rec.cycling Just zis Guy, you know? twisted the electrons to say:
On Tue, 26 May 2009 19:03:28 +0100, jms
wrote:
I would strongly object to Guy Chapman being a moderator.
Almost enough to make me want to be one, but not quite.

:-) I'm almost tempted to put my name forwards just to see if she'd
object (at a guess she'll object to just about everybody?), however
seeing as how I wouldn't actually want the job I'll pass ...
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

On May 28, 8:37*pm, "Sandy Morton" wrote:
Can I suggest that any moderator must have subscribed to this ng for at
least 5 years - that way we should get moderators who remember what it was
like when the posters were interested in Cycling! *A lot of good information
was posted about cycles, route, repairs etc.

I disagree, on the grounds that we must allow some new blood. However
I think just about all of the names mentioned would be fine, and so
would you be. I'd offer my services but not living in the UK leaves me
a little out of touch with things, and there is hardly a shortage of
volunteers so far.

James (posting since 1996 and probably before, according to a v quick
google)

In article ,
Tom Crispin wrote:
The few times I have subscribed to unnc I have been impressed with how
effectively the uk.* committee guide people. I expect that
considerable help and guidance has been given to Ian Jackson over his
proposal

I've had some comments in private email, so far from two members of
the committee, and one from control. I wouldn't say that I've had
`considerable help and guidance' so far; the help and advice I've
received has been good and useful but the timescales have been quite
short. So I don't have a complaint with the committee but I think you
may be imagining that they've taken more of a role than they have.

to create a new group, uk.rec.cycling.moderated. That said,
it has not stopped him from using his killfile in the pre-RFD
discussion.

Neither the committee nor control gave me any advice on this point.
As you will see I have accepted this criticism after you and others
made it in here in the newsgroup, and gone back and read everything
again to try to avoid missing anything relevant.

I hope you'll change your mind about me!

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657