Nuxx:MPG.26452bd782cc7d7398973e@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!prichard.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Guy Cuthbertson  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Block List Notification Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:03:43 +0100 References:   <32c694ef-5f5d-4baf-b0b3-92f883fa2bad@r1g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <83t2dtFp6uU1@mid.individual.net> <2pC*LJL9s@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <83tcusFpi3U1@mid.individual.net> <0e689c08-bba7-46db-9e68-2681b98d31e7@z30g2000yqz.googlegroups.com> Lines: 53 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.14 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100430-0, 30/04/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 0e6c8b69.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=G5@3_mGA[N740ho4ZT7>N6DiOa2YKV: X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 4181 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:29776

In article <0e689c08-bba7-46db-9e68-2681b98d31e7 @z30g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, stillyet@googlemail.com says... > > On 29 Apr, 13:40, "The Todal"  wrote: > > "Ian Jackson"  wrote in message > > > > > We reject hardly any posts, and the vast majority that are rejected > > > are from a very small number of troublesome posters. > > > > That is an unsatisfactory answer. You have to make your own policy, of > > course, and there aren't any rulebooks to consult, but it will be perceived > > as unfair if you target the poster rather than the post. > > As we have always said, it has never been our policy to target the > poster. For example, I yesterday approved a post by one of the posting > identities associated with the person known as 'Nuxxy'. Nuxxy is > widely perceived to be a troll, and we as moderators have received two > very strongly worded complaints from users of the group because this > post was allowed. But it was (in my opinion) right to allow it because > the post itself was not uncivil and was not more off topic than the > general run of posts in the thread of which it formed part.

Well, it must be said that I don't often agree with you, but I am grateful to you for allowing that post*, and also for admitting that it was you who did so: that's actually pretty brave when you consider how aggressive some of the vested interests have previously become when they've perceived that their anti-car ideology has been effectively countered in some way.

But your rational behaviour when moderating my posts just makes me all the more puzzled as to why you have banned Judith, and also why you won't explain the reasons for doing so. Would you really have blocked anyone else (except possibly me) if they had made the sequence of pretty innocuous posts that Judith has made to URCM instead of her? If so then please can you explain what was wrong with Judith's posts so that others can avoid being blocked for the same thing(s)? And if not then how can you claim to be moderating on post and not poster? Please explain as I genuinely don't get it.

Also could you please confirm whether Guy Chapman was one of the people who complained about my post? Thanks.

-- well as pertinent: it's hardly my fault as the messenger if C***man and whoever else complained don't like it when they and others are reminded that unnecessarily low speed limits designed to make motoring harder come at a *very* high price. If it bothers them that much then perhaps they should stop supporting such measures instead of trying to gag anyone from telling it how it is. When someone is *so* bothered by a pretty indisputable, generalised 2-line statement, then something's wrong somewhere: it's got to be a guilty conscience or something of that ilk.
 * I don't think there can be any doubt that what I posted was true, as