A possible solution to the trolling problem on this news group

Ian Smith wrote:
On Sat, 9 May 2009, Brimstone wrote:
Ian Smith wrote:

If you are male, were I to say "Brimstone is a ******" it would
almost certainly be literally and precisely true. It is also
personal abuse.

FYI females masturbate.

Yes, but generally reckoned that a lower percentage does so regularly
(so it would be less certainly true), and it's less commonly termed
"wank". For example, the Oxford dictionary has "masturbation, esp by
a boy or a man" for 'wank' and "A person, esp a boy or man, who
masturbates" for '******'. So I remain satisfied that my comment is
true and appropriate.

I didn't say it was or wasn't, I was adding to it.

On 8 May, 17:11, Marc wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 8 May, 14:05, wrote:
On 8 May, 13:22, "Jackbike" me@somewhere wrote:

I, for one would like my cycling newsgroup back please. Count me as
interested.
Yea, it would be good to talk about bikes on a cycling newsgroup for
once!!

I don't want to be a wet blanket but my experience has been that
USENET, like the world at large, has become infested and dominated by
motorists who, now that they are under extreme pressure from the
environmental lobby, are having to try to justify their chosen mode of
transport. Part of their justification seems to be trying to rubbish
cleaner forms of transport such as cycling while embracing polluting
forms of transport such as flying.

My experience is that the only "motorists" that come here to justify
anything are here answering you. If you dissapeared so would they.

There is some truth in this because I am being stalked by some of the
motorist inmates of uk.transport, as you can see, but seemingly they
would haunt and try to silence me on any newsgroup. They just cannot
seem to understand that some people do not like the mass car culture
and are prepared openly to say so, despite their attempts at
censorship and intimidation.

--
World Carfree Network
http://www.worldcarfree.net/
Help for your car-addicted friends in the U.K.

Doug wrote:
On 8 May, 17:11, Marc wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 8 May, 14:05, wrote:
On 8 May, 13:22, "Jackbike" me@somewhere wrote:

I, for one would like my cycling newsgroup back please. Count me
as interested.
Yea, it would be good to talk about bikes on a cycling newsgroup
for once!!

I don't want to be a wet blanket but my experience has been that
USENET, like the world at large, has become infested and dominated
by motorists who, now that they are under extreme pressure from the
environmental lobby, are having to try to justify their chosen mode
of transport. Part of their justification seems to be trying to
rubbish cleaner forms of transport such as cycling while embracing
polluting forms of transport such as flying.

My experience is that the only "motorists" that come here to justify
anything are here answering you. If you dissapeared so would they.

There is some truth in this because I am being stalked by some of the
motorist inmates of uk.transport, as you can see, but seemingly they
would haunt and try to silence me on any newsgroup. They just cannot
seem to understand that some people do not like the mass car culture
and are prepared openly to say so, despite their attempts at
censorship and intimidation.

But if you didn't post about cars and motoring those who you think are
stalking you would have nothing to post about would they?

On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. The reason's name is Doug Bollen.

Doug wrote:
On 8 May, 17:11, Marc wrote:
Doug wrote:
On 8 May, 14:05, wrote:
On 8 May, 13:22, "Jackbike" me@somewhere wrote:
I, for one would like my cycling newsgroup back please. Count me as
interested.
Yea, it would be good to talk about bikes on a cycling newsgroup for
once!!
I don't want to be a wet blanket but my experience has been that
USENET, like the world at large, has become infested and dominated by
motorists who, now that they are under extreme pressure from the
environmental lobby, are having to try to justify their chosen mode of
transport. Part of their justification seems to be trying to rubbish
cleaner forms of transport such as cycling while embracing polluting
forms of transport such as flying.
My experience is that the only "motorists" that come here to justify
anything are here answering you. If you dissapeared so would they.

There is some truth in this because


There is 100% truth in that.

I am being stalked by some of the
motorist inmates of uk.transport,

Nothing like a touch of ego is there?

as you can see, but seemingly they
would haunt and try to silence me on any newsgroup.

I don't think you are that important to them.
They just cannot
seem to understand that some people do not like the mass car culture
and are prepared openly to say so, despite their attempts at
censorship and intimidation.

No I think that they just know that you a a hypocritical prat!

BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. The reason's name is Doug Bollen.
As I see it, Doug is a new problem. This group has been in decline since
judith came over a year ago.
The problems I see are Judith, Nuxx, a propensity to have long,
infuriating and pointless discussions about helmets and now a lack of
friendly off-topic banter. Have a look at uk.rec.motorcycles, they seem
to be having a great old time and so could we.
Roger Thorpe

BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. The reason's name is Doug Bollen.

No it was going downhill before then. There was a troll infestation before
Doug came here, amplified by certain posters who kept responding to them
even when it was apparent the trolls were just trying to wind people up.

What motivated these trolls to attempt to wreck the newsgroup is not clear,
however I suspect some of the more extremist statements against motorists*
may have had something to do with it.

*e.g.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....57d1fcb2?hl=en

Roger Thorpe wrote:
BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. The reason's name is Doug Bollen.
As I see it, Doug is a new problem. This group has been in decline since
judith came over a year ago.
The problems I see are Judith, Nuxx, a propensity to have long,
infuriating and pointless discussions about helmets and now a lack of
friendly off-topic banter. Have a look at uk.rec.motorcycles, they seem
to be having a great old time and so could we.

I'm ready for a bit of banter...

On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:22:39 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. The reason's name is Doug Bollen.
As I see it, Doug is a new problem. This group has been in decline since
judith came over a year ago.
The problems I see are Judith, Nuxx, a propensity to have long,
infuriating and pointless discussions about helmets and now a lack of
friendly off-topic banter. Have a look at uk.rec.motorcycles, they seem
to be having a great old time and so could we.
Roger Thorpe


And how do you think statements like "The problems I see are
Judith,Nuxx..." contribute to the situation?

What about some of Chapman's recent comments:

------------------------------------------
Thaksin does
not have one, he is a painfully obvious troll.

And as we know judith is applying misdirection.

But yes, actually Duhg is less dangerous, (note "Dugh")

The faux politeness, wilful obtuseness and posting style were too
reminiscent of nully for my taste.

but she is a troll so is not actually
interested in informed debate, only provoking an argument.

I think it's Fat Angie and one admin assiatant.

It's not a surprise to see judith jumping on yet another elderly
bandwagon heading in the wrong direction :-)

--------------------------------------

They may be acceptable to you - but they are not to me.




--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On Sat, 09 May 2009 18:22:39 +0100, Roger Thorpe
wrote:

BrianW wrote:
On 8 May, 12:52, Rudi wrote:
Hi! (and sorry for the long post)

The main reason this group has been wrecked is the same reason
uk.transport got wrecked. The reason's name is Doug Bollen.
As I see it, Doug is a new problem. This group has been in decline since
judith came over a year ago.


Oh really - perhaps you could point to the one specific post from over
a year ago made by me which caused the decline of the group.

Some time after that,
I started a thread in uk.rec.cycling. I very soon attracted
the regulars who shot me down - often with insults. Indeed the very
first response to my post was: "Oh dear. Mostly my view is you're
extremely badly informed." It was made very obvious that I was not
welcome in uk.rec.cycling as I did not share the common view that
cyclists can do no wrong. I mentioned my experience to a colleague
who had visited uk.rec.cycling as part of some research project and
was told that there had been an observation made that uk.rec.cycling
was "an unusual strata of newsnet society".

................. and the group went downhill from there as my
colleague's views were confirmed in spades.







--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."