Nuxx:E98d423d-c9ed-4669-a575-44c9f73bc391@n2g2000prj.googlegroups.com

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!postnews.google.com!n2g2000prj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:24:51 -0700 (PDT) References:  <8uu61vFj7mU1@mid.individual.net>    <2UErjO6tRblNFwxD@[127.0.0.1]> Lines: 44 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.71.49.124 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1301660691 6548 127.0.0.1 (1 Apr 2011 12:24:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:24:51 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: n2g2000prj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Firefox/3.6.15,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3797 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39802

On Apr 1, 12:18=A0pm, "Wm..."  wrote: > > If it was a permanent ban I'd probably check with the mods that they > were sure they had done the right thing, start a new thread here stating > my case and then leave it and move on, the principle being "if they > don't want me ..."

That may be a valid conclusion if URCM were a private club, run on private servers. It's not. If they want to ban people from a public newsgroup then they should have a *damned* good reason and be transparent about it (and a permanent ban first time round is almost certainly unnecessary). Judith's ban in particular is disgraceful because they *still* haven't even told her what she's been banned for. How the hell can that be justified? The continued arrogance is completely unacceptable and those perpetrating it need to go.

Even people who very obviously don't like Judith or me have said that the bans are wrong. "First they came for me" and all that. It's quite obvious that the bans were intended from the very beginning (I'm sure they were one of the principle reasons why Jackson formed the group). Anyone who really thinks Judith or I have posted such awful things to URCM that we deserve permanent bans needs their head examined. Anyone who doesn't think that what we've posted merits permanent bans, but still wants us to be banned because they dislike us or our views, is part of the "URCM problem". Basically anyone who agrees with the bans brands themselves unreasonable and is grossly unfit to moderate URCM.

The saddest thing is that I'm sure Jackson et al have realised that the bans are doing them far more harm than good in PR terms, but that Generally there is an extreme reluctance on the part of the "moderators" to ever admit to being wrong, even if doing so would make them more popular. Their desire never to admit fallibility outweighs even their strong desire to hold on to the group. Very sad, and yet another reason why they shouldn't be running what ought to be a fairly moderated newsgroup.
 * still* isn't enough for them to even consider overturning them.

Anyone taking bets on whether 1) there will be a vote on removing Jackson in the next 6 months and 2) the vote will pass? I'm willing to put hard cash on both. And thank god there's light at the end of the tunnel and these tyrannical, unpleasant, intolerant bastards are on their way out.