Nuxx:119e9337-eabc-4b54-b85d-c04aee2de7db@o10g2000vbg.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!o10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <119e9337-eabc-4b54-b85d-c04aee2de7db@o10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:05:24 -0700 (PDT) References: <74d5df0d-37f8-43a7-a7d9-b5b6c6ec7934@a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> <546405783321530292.588814%steve%-malloc.co.uk@news.individual.net>  <8tuj8fFdm2U1@mid.individual.net>  <8u6kegFplvU1@mid.individual.net>  Lines: 54 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 1300115125 32187 127.0.0.1 (14 Mar 2011 15:05:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:05:25 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g 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: 4464 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38902

On Mar 14, 2:15=A0pm, Simon Mason  wrote: > > Of course, *known* troublemakers can be banned from all pubs in a city > centre because of their bad behaviour in another pub.

Yes, if it can actually be shown that they've really made any trouble in the first place. A landlord simply disliking someone is not sufficient.

How do you think ULM gets by without banning people? Or are you another person who thinks that URCM is a "special case" (which it isn't, it's just that some cyclists are unusually intolerant of opposing opinions)? Even if you do consider banning to be sometimes necessary, it should surely be a very last resort, especially permanent banning. Be honest now, do you really consider Judith to be necessary to safeguard URCM? Most of the time what she says is actually pretty mild, humorous and perceptive...I'm sure you've experienced far, far worse.
 * so bad* that the very worst sanction, a permanent ban, is truly

Even if you're one of the people who she's taken a dislike to (and it's worth noting that she doesn't just randomly start having a go at people for no reason), is she really so very intolerable? Do you honestly get the impression that there's rage, hatred and aggression behind her words, or is she really just taking the piss (which it has to be said is very easy when it comes to many of the hypersensitive, intolerant, insecure, irrational, deceitful and often just plain wrong psycholists)? She might hate Chapman (in common with many others) but with most other people it doesn't seem like much more than robust banter. You seem like a "man's man"...presumably pretty much any insult someone could throw at you in real life is water off a duck's back. You're secure in yourself and so you don't really care if someone else says something bad about you, right? Are you sure you're not pretending to be somewhat more sensitive than you really are in order to justify Judith's ban to yourself?

Do you think there's any truth in the oft-repeated allegation that people like Jackson wish to suppress opinions that they disagree with? Why do you think that (I believe) everyone who has complained of being treated unfairly on URCM has, at some point *before* the alleged unfair treatment, done at least one of the following four things?

1. Claimed that helmets improve safety. 2. Claimed that cycling in general is dangerous. 3. Opposed speed cameras or other anti-car measures. 4. Criticised URCM "moderation" on UNNM.

Is it just a coincidence that people who have done at least one of those things seem to be the ones who are harshly treated on URCM? If Jackson was being deliberately intolerant and unfair towards people with such opinions, would you see that as a problem? Does it bother you if URCM is a private club masquerading as nothing of the sort in order to (ab)use public news servers?