Nuxx:7ad11415-6593-4724-98d2-108f6379aa71@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <7ad11415-6593-4724-98d2-108f6379aa71@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 00:46:41 -0700 (PDT) References:   <0tk925tu9futl1k2kcmedg94sdg2iuhlbi@4ax.com>  <874ouz2fho.fsf@toy.config>    Lines: 25 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.156.251.27 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1244015201 15895 127.0.0.1 (3 Jun 2009 07:46:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 07:46:41 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.156.251.27; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.10) Gecko/2009042316 Firefox/3.0.10 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 2683 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:52654 uk.rec.cycling:4587

On Jun 2, 9:20=A0pm, a...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote: > In article , Ian Smith wrot= e: > > >What it says it wants to civil and pleasant discusion. =A0If n, d or j > >can participate in civil and pleasant discussion, then they should be > >permitted to do so. > > Absolutely.

You don't really agree with that, as your past comments indicate, you're just saying it now because you want to be a moderator.

> But moderators should be allowed to use their past and present > behaviour as a guide to the chances of them doing so in future.

Incorrect, and a black mark against you. You cannot (or certainly should not) reject a particular post from one person, based on "past behaviour", when you would have let through the exact same post if it had been from another person. Therefore any analysis of past behaviour is useless in deciding whether to let a post through.

Your acknowledging that, and agreeing to abide by it, would probably mean that I (and possibly others) would no longer object to you moderating.