URC v URD, UKT & URCM

You know, I'm open to correction on this (unlike almost anything
else), but doesn't uk.rec.cycling seem to be livelier and get more
trade these days than its moderated offshoot, and than its sisters,
uk.rec.driving and uk.transport?

On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 03:46:56 -0800 (PST)
Squashme wrote:

You know, I'm open to correction on this (unlike almost anything
else), but doesn't uk.rec.cycling seem to be livelier and get more
trade these days than its moderated offshoot, and than its sisters,
uk.rec.driving and uk.transport?

I've certainly been seeing more worthwhile discussion here than on the
new group, and that's after I've filtered out the vast majority of posts
that may even include some good ones.

Squashme wrote:
You know, I'm open to correction on this (unlike almost anything
else), but doesn't uk.rec.cycling seem to be livelier and get more
trade these days than its moderated offshoot, and than its sisters,
uk.rec.driving and uk.transport?

If you filter out the trolls, timewasters, crossposters, petrolheads,
pedants, URCM overspill, bigots and bullies from urc, then it's pretty
quiet here too!

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Rob Morley wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 03:46:56 -0800 (PST)
Squashme wrote:

You know, I'm open to correction on this (unlike almost anything
else), but doesn't uk.rec.cycling seem to be livelier and get more
trade these days than its moderated offshoot, and than its sisters,
uk.rec.driving and uk.transport?

I've certainly been seeing more worthwhile discussion here than on the
new group, and that's after I've filtered out the vast majority of posts
that may even include some good ones.

Seriously? I've not been reading urcm, but the volume of non-crap threads
on this group seems to have collapsed. I'm lucky if there's one
interesting thread active at any moment in time. Is urcm really worse, or
are our definitions of interesting/worthwhile rather different?

tom

--
The real romance is out ahead and yet to come. The computer revolution
hasn't started yet. -- Alan Kay

Squashme wrote in news:d9095b92-eb87-488a-9797-
:

You know, I'm open to correction on this (unlike almost anything
else), but doesn't uk.rec.cycling seem to be livelier and get more
trade these days than its moderated offshoot, and than its sisters,
uk.rec.driving and uk.transport?

It's a bit more civilised than it was. I know the obvious trolls were a
problem but an even bigger problem were the troll-wrestlers.

On 3 Jan, 12:32, "Mr. Benn" wrote:
Squashme wrote in news:d9095b92-eb87-488a-9797-
:

You know, I'm open to correction on this (unlike almost anything
else), but doesn't uk.rec.cycling seem to be livelier and get more
trade these days than its moderated offshoot, and than its sisters,
uk.rec.driving and uk.transport?

It's a bit more civilised than it was. *I know the obvious trolls were a
problem but an even bigger problem were the troll-wrestlers.

Yes but, one man's troll is another man's poster with a different view
point.

--
Simon Mason

wrote:
Yes but, one man's troll is another man's poster with a different view
point.

Well that's one viewpoint .. and it's different to mine! :-)


--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 12:20:08 +0000
Tom Anderson wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jan 2010, Rob Morley wrote:

On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 03:46:56 -0800 (PST)
Squashme wrote:

You know, I'm open to correction on this (unlike almost anything
else), but doesn't uk.rec.cycling seem to be livelier and get more
trade these days than its moderated offshoot, and than its sisters,
uk.rec.driving and uk.transport?

I've certainly been seeing more worthwhile discussion here than on
the new group, and that's after I've filtered out the vast majority
of posts that may even include some good ones.

Seriously? I've not been reading urcm, but the volume of non-crap
threads on this group seems to have collapsed. I'm lucky if there's
one interesting thread active at any moment in time. Is urcm really
worse, or are our definitions of interesting/worthwhile rather
different?

Our definitions are almost certainly different - I find some of the
stuff on URCM extremely tedious. Maybe it's just because I don't
filter URCM, so I see the boring topics as well as things that interest
me.

On 3 Jan, 12:13, Jim A wrote:
Squashme wrote:
You know, I'm open to correction on this (unlike almost anything
else), but doesn't uk.rec.cycling seem to be livelier and get more
trade these days than its moderated offshoot, and than its sisters,
uk.rec.driving and uk.transport?

If you filter out the trolls, timewasters, crossposters, petrolheads,
pedants, URCM overspill, bigots and bullies fromurc, then it's pretty
quiet here too!


Bit babies and bathwater, isn't that?

"Squashme" wrote in message
...
You know, I'm open to correction on this (unlike almost anything
else), but doesn't uk.rec.cycling seem to be livelier and get more
trade these days than its moderated offshoot, and than its sisters,
uk.rec.driving and uk.transport?

Yes, definitely livelier and more trade. Most of which is shared with other
groups, and seems to be endless rehashes of the same old arguments. How many
actual cycling threads are there?

I quite like URCM. Significantly fewer posts, but higher quality.