Nuxx:MPG.2552a95a3e61d809989685@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!multikabel.net!newsfeed20.multikabel.net!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!shaftesbury.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: "Just zis Guy, you know?"  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: What is the URCM moderators' definition of "needlessly inflammatory" Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:18:26 -0000 References: <7kr7i3F3abg53U1@mid.individual.net>  Lines: 36 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/2.9.13 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091028-0, 28/10/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 6e1540c5.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=dh<6KE0B]7:G:]aoWlSc[:nok4Z\WH8En, kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge says... > > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:50:46 +0000, Matt B >  wrote: > > >The reason I ask is that it is not apparent from the empirical evidence. > > > >- This post[1] got rejected as "needlessly inflammatory"! > >- This post[2] got rejected as "needlessly inflammatory"! > >- This post[3] got rejected as "needlessly inflammatory"! > >- This needlessly inflammatory post[4] (Message-ID: > >) got approved!! > > [...Snip woeful tale of moderated posts...] > > I think that your presence in urcm is unwelcome.

...because he's not anti-motorist enough.

We all knew that any motoring-related post which was "too pro-car" (i.e. not anti-car) would be censored, but even I didn't expect it to be quite this blatant. I thought the "moderators" would at least make an effort to find a halfway plausible excuse to reject such posts, but clearly they can't be bothered. "Another post about motorists which isn't 'on- message'? Let's reject it, with the usual 'needlessly inflammatory' excuse.  Oh, and here's a post which *is* needlessly inflammatory, but it's from Chapman: King of Car-Haters, so we'll just let it through."

I suppose I shouldn't complain: if the "moderators" keep making it so screamingly obvious that they're censoring posts based on the viewpoints contained therein, URCM will be the spectacular failure that it so richly deserves to be.

Jackson is *such* a car-hating fuckwit. How much more obvious could it be that he's not fit to be in charge of a newsgroup?