Nuxx:MPG.268dc3afb74f505a9897ab@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM: Yet Another Blatant Example of Double Standards Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:34:41 +0100 References:  <4c239bf4$0$2527$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>  <88hovrFcv3U1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 29 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100624-1, 24/06/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 3a14ba91.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=L;IT]N9nDiPaYWh7c\Cn3TYjZGX^207P[`, spam@smaps.net says... > > If 'Good' was all that you contributted then had that post been put to > uk.legal.moderated, I would hazard a guess of at least 85% probability that > it would be rejected because it did not offer any reasonable or further > contribution to the subject.

Fine, and I don't normally make one-word posts anyway (if anything I have the opposite problem!) But surely the point here is that the 85% probability would have applied equally to anyone posting to ULM, whereas the probability varies wildly when posting to URCM depending on who the poster is and what the "moderators" think of them. Is that not your observation as well?

And just to be clear, my OP was about someone else's post (the "Good" one) being approved despite it being inflammatory in context (and my "Why?" reply being rejected, which is an all too familiar tale: an inflammatory post from a person with the "right" opinions towards a person with the "wrong" opinions is approved, then *any* kind of attempt by the victim of the taunt to reply (with any length of post) is invariably rejected as "meta". It's classic bullying.  It's happened again and again and again and again, to many people, and the "moderators" have never given any explanation, because they know that what they're doing is against the URCM charter and the spirit of usenet.  They know it can't be justified.  Yet still they carry on just as much as before.  They have no shame or common decency.
 * completely* useless to the discussion). This was later compounded by

So only an RFD will fix it I reckon.