Nuxx:MPG.270dc1ac965b9a5c98980a@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: In support of the urcm moderators Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 22:36:18 +0100 References: <7b47a6hne27d294qgjior9rtgna1qvlkc3@4ax.com> <8ghnflFnr9U1@mid.individual.net>  Lines: 38 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 7884f776.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=7Od94[n_X[=JI1Mn0goLT?YjZGX^207P;` X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 2749 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:33937

In article , tom.nospam@britsc.com.nospam says... > > On 29 Sep 2010 20:56:21 GMT, Simon Brooke >  wrote: > > >On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 20:30:55 +0100, Tom Crispin wrote: > > > >> I hereby formally ask the moderators why it was blocked, was it: [1] > >> overly specific; > >> [2] not constructive; > >> [3] part of a meta discussion that had got out of hand. > > > >Yes. > > All three, or just [3]?

I think he was being "funny" (if you hadn't already realised). When you wrote your OP, you didn't seriously expect a proper reply from any of the moderators, did you? How many of the legitimate concerns about URCM raised on UNNM are ever answered in any way seriously, courteously or usefully by any of the moderators? It's an absolute disgrace the way that they treat the people they're supposed to be serving with such utter and continual disdain! How long can this go on?

When I saw your OP, I immediately thought "He's not going to get a proper answer from any of the moderators"...the usual "We can do what we like" attitude in other words. Then I saw that Simon Brooke had replied, and just for a second, I thought that for once it wasn't going to be the same old story. But of course it was.

It says so, so much about what's wrong with URCM that the only time that perfectly reasonable questions about moderation decisions are ever addressed is when one of the moderators can think of a sufficiently unhelpful, arrogant and supposedly "amusing" reply. Who the hell do these people think they are, apart from a good demonstration of the attitudes that psycholists have towards things such as censoring truths and decency towards others?