Nuxx:F9529926-5bcb-4f0b-bdc3-15f9db45cfc1@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:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Moderated cycling group : posts rejected Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 04:22:50 -0700 (PDT) References:     <4d9b9be9$0$19003$c3e8da3$47a2c32d@news.astraweb.com>  <4d9c14d0$0$31956$c3e8da3$f6d5ad96@news.astraweb.com> <902veeFqi4U1@mid.individual.net> Lines: 32 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 1302088970 21411 127.0.0.1 (6 Apr 2011 11:22:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:22:50 +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: 2900 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:40415

On Apr 6, 12:00=A0pm, Tony Raven  wrote: > Nick wrote: > > > The presumption is that if it were Judith the post was designed to caus= e > > trouble for the mods. > > I'm not sure whether it was Judith or not but I am sure it was designed > to cause trouble for the mods. =A0Either Nuxx really did find it meaning > he spends his time combing old urcm logs for problems or he was in on it > in the first place.

I solemnly swear that I was not "in on it" in any way, shape or form. Good enough for you? Like others here, I periodically go through the URCM rejection logs for a laugh, and that's when I saw it. Nothing more, nothing less.

(If you want to see all the rejections then you *have* to go through the logs fairly often because of the conveniently short retention time.)

> Remember it was three days old and not yet > approved or rejected when he posted his complaint. =A0Add that to a poste= r > who has never posted on Usenet before and the subject matter and its a > pretty sure bet what it is.

How sure, in percentage terms, do the "moderators" need to be that someone's a banned poster before treating them as such? Why not just give them the benefit of the doubt, at least at first? Why do people like you and them have such an obsession with not letting *any* dissent or opposing opinions through?