Nuxx:Edfe4d23-702f-44dd-aa8c-c7fa40c3e904@33g2000pru.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!33g2000pru.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: URCM - another selective rejection Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:25:23 -0800 (PST) References:    <4d49093d$0$1603$c3e8da3$de690749@news.astraweb.com>  <62pjk695vf7e6f9cbljogqpk8i068f84r7@4ax.com> <20110203014209.1d04d4dc@bluemoon> <36mkk65fr6a6ktm5nb4lm5jf8gttshokbm@4ax.com> <6769a359-28ca-436a-95f6-6c285c1812c3@y35g2000prc.googlegroups.com> Lines: 27 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 1296750324 22090 127.0.0.1 (3 Feb 2011 16:25:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:25:24 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: 33g2000pru.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.80 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5.8; U; en) Presto/2.7.62 Version/11.01,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3137 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:36744

On Feb 3, 9:48=A0am, Toom Tabard  wrote: > I've sometimes wondered if > erudition is a factor in the hostility towards some trying to post in > urcm.

I think it's only a factor if you have "banned" opinions...in that case, the "moderators" certainly do object more to well-presented arguments, because obviously then they're more likely to lose the debate. Someone having a "banned" correct opinion is not such a problem if they don't make their case as well, since disingenuous tactics and obfuscation can then be employed more easily against them to mask the fact that they're right. But if they're too good at showing unequivocally that they're correct then the only alternative (other than, shock horror, admitting defeat) is to censor their posts before they do so.

Other than whether they have "banned" transport-related opinions, and (if they do) how well they present them, I think the only other factor which determines whether the "moderators" give someone a hard time is how much (if at all) they criticise or defend URCM "moderation" decisions in public or by email. I think those three things are all you need to explain exactly why the "moderators" treat each poster as they do. Most mistreated posters (e.g. Matt B) have the "wrong" opinions; one or two, such as Tom Crispin, have mostly the "right" opinions but have dared to object to "moderation" decisions on UNNM. AFAIK there is no such thing as a mistreated poster who doesn't fulfill at least one of these criteria.