Nuxx:31a3a294-ecc2-4129-90b7-7383a4768e47@d23g2000prj.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!d23g2000prj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <31a3a294-ecc2-4129-90b7-7383a4768e47@d23g2000prj.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Beyond the pale Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 10:42:30 -0800 (PST) References:     <8rfavuFle5U1@mid.individual.net> <0sv4l65h75ombsdkcroggldb7il7sa460g@4ax.com>   Lines: 31 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 1297276950 8108 127.0.0.1 (9 Feb 2011 18:42:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 18:42:30 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: d23g2000prj.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: 2918 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:37167

On Feb 9, 2:23=A0pm, Tom Crispin  wrote: > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 13:40:47 -0000, "Phil" > >  wrote: > >Thatcher was pushed out. > > Perhaps Brooke has been likewise.

Any particular reason why you would think that? Presumably such a movement would have to have had the support of The Leader.

Brooke has certainly shown signs of cracking up recently, with that "joke" business for example. I think the strain of being part of an unreasonable, indefensible, draconian and ludicrously secretive regime while being a halfway decent and tolerant person has always taken its toll on him, and in the end it clearly became too much.

It will be interesting to see if any further explanation does emerge in regard to this decision. It may be the beginning of the end for URCM in its current form, especially as Brooke was a "senior" (and original) moderator, although as someone else said it could well get worse before it gets better: once those other "moderators" whose consciences are partly troubled by the current unfairness have resigned, we will of course end up with the very worst ones left, which will be a nightmare while it lasts, but that probably won't be for too long, as URCM's reputation will then be even more in the gutter than it already is, and too many people will want change for it to survive.

This, then, was probably a necessary stepping stone towards proper and lasting reform.