Madness: Driver almost hits oncoming vehicle while overtaking cyclist

On 21/05/2020 20:05, colwyn wrote:
On 21/05/2020 19:02, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 21/05/2020 09:21, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 20/05/2020 18:21, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 20/05/2020 15:06, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

...when I was investigated, they discovered that I never took a
meal or tea break and so they forced me to have them,
during which I could post about cycling matters to urc using
company IT. In fact, they always encouraged us to use the
internet as it was "free IT training".

I think it is heinous that anyone should take a grievance they have
with someone on usenet and then anonymously and maliciously take it
out into real life.Â* That in itself is bad enough, in my opinion.

It's a good job that it didn't happen then, isn't it?

And it didn't. The poster concerned was a notorious wind-up
merchant.

Yes, you said, but wasn't that in relation to some BP AGM?

All part of the same sequence of events.

This
'Judith' person threatened to make trouble for Simon there, that
could
have been a wind up as you suggest. But there is also this letter
that
Simon took to the police:

On Tue, 19 May 2020, Simon Mason wrote:

Here is the text of the letter that "Judith" sent to Hull HR, a
copy of which I sent to the police. It was signed by "Peter
Granger" and "Peter Grainger".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...U/gL35SCO9EEgJ


That couldn't have been a wind up - I mean how could Simon have been
mistaken about that? Are these two separate incidents? Actually, I
don't expect answers to any of these question, if it's all gossip I
don't really want to hear what is none of my business.

I believe what Simon says about this letter, which he took to the
police because I don't see how he could have been mistaken about
that.

The "letter" quoted by Simon was apparently sent by someone *not*
called
Judith.

Perhaps you have further and better particulars.

It looks to me as though there is definitely one letter, and there may
be another letter or two which may or may not have actually been sent.

That is not something on which I can usefully comment. The only thing
that is and was within my knowledge in this context was that there was
no "deputation" to the BP AGM.

AAMOF, I'm fairly sure that that was revealed here relatively soon after
the event. Not more than a few weeks, though I'm estimating that.

This was not just Judith then it is also other members of the group,
seems like quite an organised wind-up. They were all planning to make
a day of it and have a few drinks together afterwards.

I think that was in the days when u.r.c.moderated was formed.
Pete Whelans last post to this unmoderated group was:

"Last post to this 'newsgroup'.Â* Those that remain, enjoy the
Troll-fest" (Oct 2009 I believe and not much has changed in the current
abusive clique)

You can read some of the sentiments he
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ave0%5B1-25%5D

-----
irrelevant snipped
------

I was not involved.

When it comes to abuse and insult, I never am.

It was nearly a decade ago. I was thinking how unexpectedly involved
usenet was just a week or two ago but it looks like it was on a
different level again so many years ago. I guess usenet didn't have
all the competition from other social media outlets back then as it
does today.

On 21/05/2020 19:03, Kelly wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2020 10:10, Kelly wrote:
Pamela wrote:

Kelly, where does your LETTER2 come from? I haven't seen it before.

That message was posted by Judith in ukrc cycling on 16th January 2012
(Message-ID: ). Obviously
posted to get at Simon - even though she claimed to Mr Nugent it was
really a wind-up and no such letter was actually ever sent.

I don't think that last bit is quite correct.

Okay.

All that "Judith" told me
by email was that there had been no visit to, and no intention to visit,
the BP AGM and that the "threat" had been a simple wind-up. I don't
recall any discussion(s) of letters - certainly not in any email sent to me.

Right, I have been making an awful lot of assumptions (quite a few of
them are mistaken, I now suspect).

That email (the AGM caper) was eminently believable, given that "Judith"
was pretty well-recognised as an accomplished wind-up merchant. If I
remember correctly, there was a claim that when "Judith" first appeared
in ukrc, her intention (perhaps in winning a bet) was to extend a thread
to some impossibly long lost of posts and responses - in the hundreds, I
think. I could find out more by mining the Google archive, I suppose.
But I can't be bothered... ;-)

Well I'm sure you have other things to do but I must say I find it
quite fascinating just following and watching certain posters operate
on usenet. Judith must have been quite a notorious character in her
heyday (although I'm quite sure Simon would describe 'her'
differently), and her name still crops up quite often in these
newsgroups.

Before I go can I just quickly mention this little tip. Remember a few
days ago you were having trouble getting to see some text on some
website because of all the ads and notifications blocking the page?
There's this 'read and annotate without distractions' free service
that can get rid of all that clutter and it just prints out the text
you want to see. Its called ' outline.com ' you can go to their web
page and enter into a box there the website address you want to read.
Alternatively, and this is real handy, you can prefix the bit
https://outline.com/.com/ onto the website address that you want to
access. So if the website you want to read is, eg dummy example:
https://www.thecantreadthis.driving-the-new-smoking/
Change it to:
https://outline.com/https://www.this...e-new-smoking/
Paste this into your browser as usual and then when you enter the
address the text appears clutter free. That dummy example won't work,
of course, but the free service works a treat on a number of website
addresses. Anyway, thanks for all your help in explaining some of the
intrigue surrounding the goings on in ukrc past history - it wouldn't
have been anywhere near possible without you.

Many thanks for that and for your assistance.

Simon Mason wrote:

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 7:03:43 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 9:21:05 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:


ps. I sincerely hope that Simon does not mind this speculation that we
are engaged in (if you wish, Simon, say the word and I will desist
forthwith).

I don't really care about it as it was nearly a decade ago now and the protagonists in the case all failed in their attempts to get me into trouble in any meaningful way. All water under the bridge.

Good. (By the way, I know I've got some things wrong, Simon, you think
this 'Peter' poster was 'Judith' and you must know far better than I).

It must have caused quite a stir in ukrc at the time to still be
remembered and talked about nearly a decade later. And you must play a
leading part in the history of this news group.

I have been here since urc first started in 1995.

That's a wealth of experience in this group.

Judith first turned up in 2008 because of this incident.

"The foray which led to my bet on the long thread when I first visited
here, was as a result of me being told by a colleague they had
visited uk.rec.cycling as part of some research project and had
observed "an unusual strata (SIC) of newsnet society".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...k/cHQ0rXqQsVMJ

This is an example of what I mean about my finding usenet far more
involved than I thought it would be. (...and I like the highlight of
an incorrect use of a plural word).

Incidentally, there was a nice mind-expanding bit in that linked
thread when one of the posters, Toom Tabard, comes out with the line:
"I could be a group of psychology students doing a project for their
dissertations." It had never crossed my mind before that one poster
could actually comprise of more than one person.

colwyn wrote:

On 21/05/2020 19:02, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 21/05/2020 09:21, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 20/05/2020 18:21, Kelly wrote:
JNugent wrote:

On 20/05/2020 15:06, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

...when I was investigated, they discovered that I never took a meal or tea break and so they forced me to have them,
during which I could post about cycling matters to urc using company IT. In fact, they always encouraged us to use the
internet as it was "free IT training".

I think it is heinous that anyone should take a grievance they have
with someone on usenet and then anonymously and maliciously take it
out into real life. That in itself is bad enough, in my opinion.

It's a good job that it didn't happen then, isn't it?

And it didn't. The poster concerned was a notorious wind-up merchant.

Yes, you said, but wasn't that in relation to some BP AGM?

All part of the same sequence of events.

This
'Judith' person threatened to make trouble for Simon there, that could
have been a wind up as you suggest. But there is also this letter that
Simon took to the police:

On Tue, 19 May 2020, Simon Mason wrote:

Here is the text of the letter that "Judith" sent to Hull HR, a copy of which I sent to the police. It was signed by "Peter Granger" and "Peter Grainger".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...U/gL35SCO9EEgJ

That couldn't have been a wind up - I mean how could Simon have been
mistaken about that? Are these two separate incidents? Actually, I
don't expect answers to any of these question, if it's all gossip I
don't really want to hear what is none of my business.

I believe what Simon says about this letter, which he took to the
police because I don't see how he could have been mistaken about that.

The "letter" quoted by Simon was apparently sent by someone *not* called
Judith.

Perhaps you have further and better particulars.

It looks to me as though there is definitely one letter, and there may
be another letter or two which may or may not have actually been sent.

That is not something on which I can usefully comment. The only thing
that is and was within my knowledge in this context was that there was
no "deputation" to the BP AGM.

AAMOF, I'm fairly sure that that was revealed here relatively soon after
the event. Not more than a few weeks, though I'm estimating that.

This was not just Judith then it is also other members of the group,
seems like quite an organised wind-up. They were all planning to make
a day of it and have a few drinks together afterwards.

I think that was in the days when u.r.c.moderated was formed.
Pete Whelans last post to this unmoderated group was:

"Last post to this 'newsgroup'. Those that remain, enjoy the
Troll-fest" (Oct 2009 I believe and not much has changed in the current
abusive clique)

You can read some of the sentiments he
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ave0%5B1-25%5D

It must be difficult to keep everyone in a discussion group happy. It
seems to me to be not so much dependant on the divergent views of the
subscribers to the group as the way some people within the group
conduct themselves.

The word troll gets mentioned a lot on usenet and we all have our own
favoured definition of what a troll is. But I think it's fair to say
you have acceptable trolls who generate interest within a group, and
while they can cause some irritation overall they can be considered
advantageous to newsgroups. In that they can stimulate discussion and
keep a group lively. Unfortunately you also have the nasty trolls and
the destructive trolls who can cause real damage to a newsgroup as
well as to individuals within a group - if you allow them to.

The problem, as I see it, is that most people are neither wholly bad,
nor wholly good, and so it is up to each of us to use our own
individual judgement in deciding what we are prepared to accept and
what we are not. On the internet this can be quite challenging with
all the different online personalities but, as in real life, what more
can you do other than live and learn?

On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 10:57:46 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Unfortunately you also have the nasty trolls and
the destructive trolls who can cause real damage to a newsgroup as
well as to individuals within a group - if you allow them to.

That is why the moderated cycling group was formed.

On Thu, 21 May 2020 17:06:12 GMT, Simon Mason
wrote:

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 10:38:09 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Quite why Mister X would post as Peter or Judith depends on what was
happening back then and I don't know the details. It doesn't help
that Simon's rather skewed account of those events (in which Simon
needs to be portrayed as the victim) can't be relied upon.

Here is the post where "Judith" admits sending the letter to BP which
then turned up at work a few days later signed by "Peter Grainger".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...c/J8CtbQjoujYJ

This was "water under the bridge" a few hours earlier; make your mind up!

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.

On 18:06 21 May 2020, Simon Mason said:

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 10:38:09 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

Quite why Mister X would post as Peter or Judith depends on what was
happening back then and I don't know the details. It doesn't help that
Simon's rather skewed account of those events (in which Simon needs to
be portrayed as the victim) can't be relied upon.

Here is the post where "Judith" admits sending the letter to BP which
then turned up at work a few days later signed by "Peter Grainger".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...c/J8CtbQjoujYJ


That looks like an interesting thread and relevant to this discussion.
Unfortunately I don't have time to plough through those many details.

In summary it seems you provoked some posters into complaining (using one
method or another) about wasting time and company resources.

As I understand it there's no evidence of an investigation and nothing
came of it.

Is that more or less right?

On 22/05/2020 10:45, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 7:03:43 PM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Simon Mason wrote:

On Thursday, May 21, 2020 at 9:21:05 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:


ps. I sincerely hope that Simon does not mind this speculation that we
are engaged in (if you wish, Simon, say the word and I will desist
forthwith).

I don't really care about it as it was nearly a decade ago now and the protagonists in the case all failed in their attempts to get me into trouble in any meaningful way. All water under the bridge.

Good. (By the way, I know I've got some things wrong, Simon, you think
this 'Peter' poster was 'Judith' and you must know far better than I).

It must have caused quite a stir in ukrc at the time to still be
remembered and talked about nearly a decade later. And you must play a
leading part in the history of this news group.

I have been here since urc first started in 1995.

That's a wealth of experience in this group.

Judith first turned up in 2008 because of this incident.

"The foray which led to my bet on the long thread when I first visited
here, was as a result of me being told by a colleague they had
visited uk.rec.cycling as part of some research project and had
observed "an unusual strata (SIC) of newsnet society".

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/uk.r...k/cHQ0rXqQsVMJ

This is an example of what I mean about my finding usenet far more
involved than I thought it would be. (...and I like the highlight of
an incorrect use of a plural word).

Incidentally, there was a nice mind-expanding bit in that linked
thread when one of the posters, Toom Tabard, comes out with the line:
"I could be a group of psychology students doing a project for their
dissertations." It had never crossed my mind before that one poster
could actually comprise of more than one person.

Whilst I have had that impression about (some) subscriber accounts in
other NGs, it has never seemed to me that it happens in ukrc. It is
rather the opposite he certain individuals using various names and
pretending to be multiple people (not always successfully).

On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 11:35:29 AM UTC+1, Pamela wrote:

In summary it seems you provoked some posters into complaining (using one
method or another) about wasting time and company resources.

As I understand it there's no evidence of an investigation and nothing
came of it.

Is that more or less right?

The only outcome was that I was forced to take proper breaks and post to urc during those periods. I retired on my 56th birthday in 2014.

Simon Mason wrote:

On Friday, May 22, 2020 at 10:57:46 AM UTC+1, Kelly wrote:
Unfortunately you also have the nasty trolls and
the destructive trolls who can cause real damage to a newsgroup as
well as to individuals within a group - if you allow them to.

That is why the moderated cycling group was formed.

Yes, and I can well see the advantage of a moderated group - it being
almost impossible to troll. But they must have their downsides
otherwise there would be loads of them and all more popular than their
unmoderated versions. That said, I haven't even tried the moderated
cycling group yet.

Isn't getting moderation with a truly dispassionate touch one of the
main problems? Maybe that needs computer moderated groups - if that
could be achieved.