Nuxx:081ed37e-0c8e-4f5a-9f7c-765b824b09fc@w6g2000vbo.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!w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <081ed37e-0c8e-4f5a-9f7c-765b824b09fc@w6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Confused about URCM in UNNM Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 08:43:04 -0800 (PST) References: <4_ydnZpOJKf8keXQnZ2dnUVZ8jKdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <3fd9f5fc-ab1e-4b80-8141-f8ca23c707d8@u14g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> <1b69b10d-4e22-4938-8067-da805b1a0fb7@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>   Lines: 44 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 1299775384 32479 127.0.0.1 (10 Mar 2011 16:43:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 16:43:04 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: w6g2000vbo.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: 3553 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:38695

On Mar 10, 3:15=A0pm, Ian Jackson  wrote: > In article , > Nuxx Bar =A0 wrote: > > >Do you think I should be banned from URCM? =A0Especially when the > >"reason" given for that ban was a *suspicion* that I posted forgeries > >to *UNNM*? > > This is not correct. =A0Nuxx Bar's forging and nymshifting is > (a) well-established and (b) extends to urcm too.

You're seriously making out that the "forgeries" posted to UNNM, including your "resignation" thread, had no bearing on the decision?

Where is your *evidence* that I posted any of the "forgeries" concerned, either to UNNM or URCM? By "evidence", I do not mean wishful thinking on your part, nor do I mean emails from Chapman saying that it was me.

If you cannot produce actual evidence then it is indeed merely a suspicion, and you shouldn't be banning people on suspicion alone. Otherwise you can just conjure up suspicion of something-or-other as an excuse to ban anyone you like (perish the thought). I posted nothing objectionable to URCM, but you didn't like me or my opinions, so you banned me anyway. We all know that's the real reason, and you can be man enough to admit it any time you want. It's not like you could become any less popular as a result.

> If Nuxx Bar gives permission we could post publicly the email > notifying Nuxx Bar of the reasons for the ban.

Oh, knock yourself out. This would presumably be the completely useless two-line email from Simon Brooke? If not then I haven't seen it, but post it anyway, it'll be a good laugh I'm sure.

And it's most strange to refer to someone in the third person when you're replying to them. Either you're deigning to speak to someone or you're not, surely? Kind of adds to your pantomime pomposity really. You could start referring to yourself in the third person as well I suppose: "The Chief Moderator decrees that [...]" Then there's the royal "we" if you prefer. Do give both those things serious consideration.