On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:32:33 +0000, Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:
Quoted message said:I've been using Usenet for more than twenty years. In that time, I've had
a number of 'home' groups, groups on which I've hung out and spent a
fair bit of time. All of them, except this one, have been destroyed by
trolls and are now moribund.
Up to a point. A couple of the wreck.bikes groups are now dead, but
in at least one case the troll is not formally a troll, he is a cranky
and disputatious old man who has too much time on his hands, some of
his posts are on topic and others not. Essentially he hijacked the
group, often posting two or three replies to a single message and
replying to his own messages. And I've done that, too, in my time, so
it's not too easy to take the moral high ground here. It's trolling,
Jim, but not as we know it...
Quoted message said:And no, this isn't 'just me'. I admit I do occasionally make deliberately
inflammatory posts, and much too often allow myself to get dragged into
off-topic flame fests. But across Usenet there are hundreds of once
useful, lively, vibrant groups which are now empty but for sporadic
postings of spam.
That's not entirely the fault of the spammers and trolls, in some
cases web forums have supplanted them; lots of people don't know about
Usenet. We're a dinosaur. Or at least a living fossil.
I think the presence of at least some argument is a sign of health in
a group, actually. If we all agreed all the time it would probably
indicate that we'd driven off everybody else, which is no better than
what Dolan has done to arbr.
Quoted message said:This group can go the same way, and it /will/ go the same way unless we
all get our act together.
Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes it's fun to poke clueless trolls with a
stick. Cruel, but fun :-)
It's also the case that in defending our point of view against trolls,
we refine our understanding of the arguments as they are seen both by
us and by others. There is no doubt that Martlew did us (FSVO) a
favour with his Bill, in that many of us learned an enormous amount
about the political process, lobbying legislatures, the persuasive vs.
non-persuasive arguments, and how to network with MPs and such. A few
words dropped in the right ears did seem to sideline the Lords'
amendment to the RS bill recently. We've also now learned that the
BMA is just another talking shop, which was useful to learn (in a bad
way).
Quoted message said:* Children being killed by cars /is/ tragic/. We all agree. That the
legal system is dangerously lenient when dealing with motorists is
uncontroversial. But, unless the child was cycling, it is not on topic
on this group. Ever.
A motorist killing someone on a pavement /is/ relevant, because we are
forever being lambasted for cyclists being on the pavement. Relative
danger is a key part of that debate.
Quoted message said:* Speed cameras, speed limits, vehicle excise duty, and other related
topics are not on topic on this group. Ever.
As others have pointed out, there is a strong overlap between cyclists
and road safety activists. Not just the Bill Boaks types, but CTC is
a member of Safer Streets Coalition and supports T2000 and Sustrans
(although they seem to have forgotten the "trans" part of late).
Slower motor traffic speeds are a benefit to cyclists and discussing
urban speeding (and its apologists) is entirely relevant in that
context.
And let's not forget that most of us are also drivers.
Quoted message said:* Helmets /are/ on topic on this group. But they are also a FAQ. Could we
nominate Guy Chapman as our 'Helmet officer', who will post just
exactly one reply to any newbie asking about helmets or helmet safety,
and the rest of us all LEAVE IT ALONE.
LOL! Tony Raven does it so much better, though :-)
Quoted message said:Finally, there are a number of people whom we all know are here
fundamentally as trolls, with no serious interest in cycling and no good
will towards this group. I don't need to list them; you all know who I
mean. Please, everyone, just killfile them.
Done long ago.
Quoted message said:Yes, I /know/ a good argument is fun, particularly when you are
frustrated or bored. But this group is /not/ an appropriate place. It's
my opinion that this group is valuable, to me at least. If you agree
with me, please help keep it lively, vibrant and useful.
Kill the thread, then. It's not much effort. Not that I'd miss them,
but it is not really too hard to avoid these people (as opposed to
just ignoring them).
The major exception here is x-posts to/from uk.tosspot. I cannot
recall a single thread crossposted with that group which was anything
other than a shouting match between entrenched and opposing
viewpoints; crossposted threads should be shot on sight and the bodies
burned.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
