Nuxx:0007dbc2-2473-4d8e-ac57-8a8f7df94ad9@d28g2000yqf.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!d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <0007dbc2-2473-4d8e-ac57-8a8f7df94ad9@d28g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM - advice required please - a ban is pending!!! Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 15:29:14 -0700 (PDT) References: <20110408103041.556dc793@gododdin.internal.journeyman.cc> <90857uFq22U1@mid.individual.net> <908ojhFc0qU1@mid.individual.net>  Lines: 29 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 1302301754 5203 127.0.0.1 (8 Apr 2011 22:29:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 22:29:14 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d28g2000yqf.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:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2849 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:40605

On Apr 8, 4:53=A0pm, Ian Jackson  wrote: > In article <908ojhFc0...@mid.individual.net>, > > The Todal  wrote: > >I can't understand why we have embarked on this long and tedious argumen= t in > >a newsgroup for which the argument is so plainly off topic. > > Because neither of you is willing to let the other have the last word.

And unfortunately, on this newsgroup, you are unable to (ab)use "moderation" to ensure that the person you agree with is the one to succeed in having the last word. Soon that will be the case on URCM as well, and no doubt you will show your appreciation (and how much you really "support UK cycling on Usenet") by petulantly refusing to use the new URCM from the beginning, even just to see how it goes. (After all, wouldn't it be terrible if you actually liked it....)

I think that if you did the decent thing at this point, and offered to let a new team of moderators take over immediately without anyone needing an RFD (presumably that's possible since changes to the "moderators" have already been made without RFDs, albeit not the Chief Moderator), then a lot of people (myself included) would have a new- found respect for you. As it's going to happen anyway, you might as well save some face. But that's not the Ian Jackson we've come to know and, err, not love, is it? Much better to be seen to make things as difficult as possible for the terrible vandals who (gasp) want URCM to be moderated properly and fairly.