Nuxx:50e98a65-01d1-46ec-9e86-70624c2d9168@r14g2000vbm.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!r14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <50e98a65-01d1-46ec-9e86-70624c2d9168@r14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 13:27:08 -0700 (PDT) References:  <8uu61vFj7mU1@mid.individual.net>    <20110401094029.5a612d1a@gododdin>   <472db878-c6ec-4711-aa0a-b6dcb90cf8ed@a19g2000prj.googlegroups.com>  Lines: 101 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 1301776028 3728 127.0.0.1 (2 Apr 2011 20:27:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 20:27:08 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: r14g2000vbm.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: 6179 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:39944

On Apr 1, 5:34=A0pm, Andy Leighton  wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 06:42:02 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar  w= rote: > > On Apr 1, 1:48 pm, Andy Leighton  wrote: > >> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:46:25 +0100, Matthew Vernon  wrote: > >> > Simon Brooke  writes: > > >> >> On Fri, 01 Apr 2011 09:31:07 +0100 > >> >> Geoff Berrow  wrote: > > >> >>> I know you're not moaning. Would you moan if you were banned > >> >>> permanently, for many less rejections than you are getting now, > >> >>> permanently and without appeal? > > >> >> 'indefinitely' !=3D 'permanently'. > > >> > "indefinitely with no plans to reconsider" ??? "permanently", though= . > > >> I think it would be safer to say the ball is in their court. > > > Oh yeah? =A0How does that square with your insistence that people's > > behaviour in other groups doesn't affect their treatment by the > > "moderators"? =A0 > > It didn't affect your treatment. =A0

Bullshit.

> IMO I would need to believe that on the whole your presence would be more > of a benefit than a disbenefit to the group (and its members) in order to > recommend a reversal of the decision.

Funny because the stated "reason" for the ban had absolutely nothing to do with any of that. Almost like the ban was intended from the start, because you and your ilk dislike me and my opinions, and the "forgeries" were just a handy excuse. In any case I wasn't aware that in order to post to a public newsgroup, one had to persuade the newsgroup's moderators that one was "more of a benefit than a disbenefit to the group". There was silly old me thinking that the moderators were only there to judge each post on its merits, and that if my posts were acceptable, I would be allowed to post. (Of course, I didn't believe that, but that is what I and others were repeatedly assured would be the case.)

> What other criteria could I use > to reconsider an indefinite exclusion?

Hmm, how about what I have actually posted to URCM? Thereagain, you can't find anything wrong with any of that, can you? Must have been frustrating for you.

> Quite frankly in your case the barrier is high.

Well, luckily for me, there's a way of getting back into URCM which is a lot easier and will have the added bonus of clearing out the substandard arrogant pathetic excuses for "moderators" who currently control it.

You (plural) have done a truly miserable, terrible, awful job of moderating URCM. When will that sink in? The high level of incompetence would be bad enough in itself, but coupled with the sneering arrogance, the constant secrecy and refusal to communicate, and most of all the downright malevolence towards certain people (mainly me/Judith/Matt B/Tom Crispin but also others who dared to criticise the regime), it's an unforgivable mess, and the forthcoming vote is long, long overdue. You've screwed up in the most spectacular way. URCM, or at least its first incarnation, should go down in history as an object lesson in how not to moderate a public newsgroup. I doubt that any other moderated newsgroup has ever had so much criticism. What is so hard to understand about "You can't run a private club as a public newsgroup"? How dare you keep plugging away trying to do so for so long, making out that you're somehow trying to "save UK cycling on Usenet" while doing the polar opposite? Who the hell do you think you are?

> You have shown a strong > dislike of and enmity to certain other members of the group

...which has been reciprocated.

> which has > spilled over into extreme abuse on a number of occasions.

Only outside URCM, which you're not supposed to take account of. If you're talking about the "phone calls" that Chapman supposedly received then you shouldn't be taking his word for it anyway.

> You also show > no real sense of topicality. =A0Speed cameras and whether they save/cost > lives are not on topic for a cycling group frex.

There's nothing wrong with what I've posted to URCM. It doesn't really matter what I do; you, Jackson et al will never accept my presence in URCM, simply because I don't accept that the only way to make the roads safer is to give motorists a harder and harder time. You are deeply intolerant of such viewpoints, and ultimately you don't see the point in "moderating" URCM unless you can exclude them. Thank god another platform has been found and you're on your way out. Close the door on your way.