Discussion between groups

Clive George ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ITYM that certain of the denizens of uk.transport don't really like to
hear any opinion that differs from their own firmly held bias.

Quoted message said:

IFYPFY.

You little tinker...

Steven said:

A thread has cropped up on uk.rec.cycling, (Re: Bus lanes and cyclists - why
cross-post), where a poster was encouraging another to ignore netiquette and
make multiple postings rather than the accepted method of crossposting.

I asked the person in question not to encourage others to ignore netiquette
(even if there is some local custom amongst a clique in one group to ignore
another that is no excuse for posting in a way that might encourage a newbie to
believe that what was being suggested was general USENET etiquette).

The responses I've got on uk.rec.cycling seem to have been somewhat childish and
immature, so I'd like the opinion of those on both groups.

Do you think it is a good idea to try and prevent debate between the members of
two groups that evidently cover common ground?

Personally, I don't have a problem with cross-posting.

FWIW, I don't think there are any more cliques in uk.rec.cycling than
there are in uk.transport.

If you don't want to see the views of the other group(s) in a
cross-post, one can just ignore the thread or use the killfile. One
possible reason for wanting separation from the "other lot" is because
it so often, as noted by others, turns into a slanging match. IMHO this
is because (WARNING: Huge, gratuitous generalisation approaching)

For those in uk.transport, all cyclists are red-light jumping, pavement
terrorising hippies.

For those in uk.rec.cycling, all motorists are selfish, cyclist hating,
Jeremy Clarkson wannabies.

It's not war as such, but it's certainly no basis for debate.

--
Chris

"Steven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Do you think it is a good idea to try and prevent debate between the

members of

Quoted message said:

two groups that evidently cover common ground?

I think you'r being idealistic.
When I first encountered uk.transport I tried to put some of my cycling
views across, bearing in mind I drive more than cycle.
Unfortunately opinions on ukt seem to be entrenched, at best closed minds
repeating the same mantra at worst childish abuse and agression
After a while the truth dawned that I was just going where many had gone
before and I realised it was pointless.
And the bickering is not only between motorists and cyclists but between
other groups as well.

Pete

"Peter B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Steven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Do you think it is a good idea to try and prevent debate between the

members of

Quoted message said:

two groups that evidently cover common ground?

I think you'r being idealistic.
When I first encountered uk.transport I tried to put some of my cycling
views across, bearing in mind I drive more than cycle.

As did I. I too learnt fairly swiftly and realised why it is fondly referred
to as uk.tosspot :-)

Cheers, helen s

"Steven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Obviously, as a cyclist myself, I'm very open to issues that affect

cycling, but

Quoted message said:

I would rather hear *all* the other points of view than have a few rather
immature posters try and stiffle discussion with those who may not agree

with

Quoted message said:

their views.

Hello!
As a cyclist I frequent uk.rec.cycling, the reason is in the title.
As a cyclist, motorist, flyer and occasional train user I may visit
uk.transport.
And I think "road tax", compulsory testing and insurance, Lycra louts, red
light jumping and pavement cycling have been done to death, not a lot more
"common ground" to "discuss".

If you don't believe me do some Googling, see if you can come up with
anything new to be discussed between cyclists and other road (& pavement)
users then post it on uk.transport where interested parties, including
cyclists can make of it what they will.

Pete

"Vincent Wilcox" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mr Farty Pants said:

The responses I've got on uk.rec.cycling seem to have been somewhat

childish and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

immature, so I'd like the opinion of those on both groups.

Lalalalalalalaalallalalaalaa im not listening to you Mr Farty Poo-poo
pants nerr nerr nerr nerr nah nah!

<sfx> A loud raspberry </sfx>

You horrid boy! You've made me laugh and spit coffee onto my keyboard, I'm
telling!

Pete

Peter B ([email hidden]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Quoted message said:

If you don't believe me do some Googling, see if you can come up with
anything new to be discussed between cyclists and other road (&
pavement) users then post it on uk.transport where interested parties,
including cyclists can make of it what they will.

We look forward to you starting that thread, then.

Steven said:

A thread has cropped up on uk.rec.cycling, (Re: Bus lanes and cyclists - why
cross-post), where a poster was encouraging another to ignore netiquette and
make multiple postings rather than the accepted method of crossposting.

I asked the person in question not to encourage others to ignore netiquette
(even if there is some local custom amongst a clique in one group to ignore
another that is no excuse for posting in a way that might encourage a newbie to
believe that what was being suggested was general USENET etiquette).

The responses I've got on uk.rec.cycling seem to have been somewhat childish and
immature, so I'd like the opinion of those on both groups.

Do you think it is a good idea to try and prevent debate between the members of
two groups that evidently cover common ground?

Debate? What's that?

Tosspot said:

Steven said:

A thread has cropped up on uk.rec.cycling, (Re: Bus lanes and
cyclists - why cross-post), where a poster was encouraging another
to ignore netiquette and make multiple postings rather than the
accepted method of crossposting.

I asked the person in question not to encourage others to ignore
netiquette (even if there is some local custom amongst a clique in
one group to ignore another that is no excuse for posting in a way
that might encourage a newbie to believe that what was being
suggested was general USENET etiquette).

The responses I've got on uk.rec.cycling seem to have been somewhat
childish and immature, so I'd like the opinion of those on both
groups.

Do you think it is a good idea to try and prevent debate between the
members of two groups that evidently cover common ground?

Debate? What's that?

I believe, m'lud, he wishes to instigate a mass-debate.

Steven wrote:
<Loads of stuff snipped>

Quoted message said:

There seems to be a little clique here who do not want to discuss things in an
adult manner, and would rather just have a cosy little group where non cyclists
don't intrude with awkward ideas.

Apart from anything else, if I want to promote something which I think would be
good for cycling, I want to know *all* the opposing arguments so that I am not
surprised by them, particularly in a face to face debate.

<very cross mode>
I ride to work every day dressed in little more than basic underwear and armed
only with a cycle pump. Whilst I appreciate that not all motorists are actually
out to kill me, it does sometimes feel that the non-cycling, armoured tank
driving, "Please excuse me, but I'm in a hurry" denizens of uk.tosspot don't
actually care whether I live or die let alone show an interest in my opinion.

When they are prepared to accept that I am a valid road user, I will be prepared
to debate.
</very cross mode>

--
Terry Duckmanton.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/terry.duckmanton
A website mostly dedicated to cycling