Nuxx:Ddad121e-0056-4a16-baa2-8e4cccfdc75c@y31g2000vbp.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!y31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.moderation Subject: Re: Moderated cycling group : posts rejected Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:42:49 -0700 (PDT) References: <71p*5l3zt@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> <9065j6FscgU6@mid.individual.net> Lines: 64 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 1302208972 13806 127.0.0.1 (7 Apr 2011 20:42:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 20:42:52 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: y31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com; posting-host=82.71.49.124; posting-account=WrLs9woAAAD151hWKA9yknAtxFHW4kE4 User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.16) Gecko/20110319 Firefox/3.6.16,gzip(gfe) Bytes: 4541 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.moderation:40521

On Apr 7, 5:03=A0pm, Tony Raven  wrote: > Ian Jackson  wrote: > > In article , > > Tony =A0 wrote: > >> Since we both use Usenet, I assume we both feel it has some value. =A0= I > >> think trying to paint Web Forums as a superior resource is a little > >> silly, and making out that moderated newsgroups (or no anonymity) are > >> the only answer to allow Usenet to retain it's users is odd. > > > I think a big part of the answer would have been, 10 or 15 years ago, > > for the uk.* establishment to encourage the formation of a whole bunch > > of new moderated newsgroups, and/or the moderation of existing groups, > > along with an understanding that moderators' decisions would generally > > be supported by uk.* regulars rather than subjected to what amounts to > > a "de novo" review by people ignorant of the social context. > > > I think it is probably too late now. > > Unfortunately true. =A0The thing that has really surprised and annoyed me= is > the willingness of the hierarchy to excuse intransigence and undermine th= e > moderators.

Perhaps at this point we should remind ourselves of the definition of "intransigent" (from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intransigent):

"Unwilling to compromise or moderate a position; unreasonable; irreconcilable; stubborn."

It seems to me that the "moderators" and their supporters are guilty of intransigence to a *far* greater degree than their opponents. You are clearly unable/unwilling to accept that; people like Tony and Geoff are able to take a more objective view precisely because they haven't been "involved".

When people like you and Jackson talk about "social context" and URCM being a "special case", what you really mean is that because of your involvement, you see things in a horribly biased and warped fashion, and consider anyone who doesn't see things similarly to be committing a grave injustice against you. By "special case" you mean "It's OK for us to be horribly obnoxious and intolerant towards anyone who has the 'wrong' opinions about helmets etc, even though it wouldn't be OK in a 'normal' newsgroup which wasn't a 'special case'". Well, guess what, you're wrong, and not for the first time.

Anyway, as someone else has recently said, you reap what you sow: if Jackson didn't want his newsgroup to be scrutinised by the Committee and UNNM posters then he should have set it up as a private newsgroup, or as a web forum. It's no good whining about it now. He seems to want all the benefits of running a uk.* newsgroup with none of the responsibilities or accountability; any fool could have told him that that wasn't going to be allowed, yet amazingly he seems surprised that that's what's come to pass.

Perhaps he genuinely thought that because he was the one, the only, the amazing Ian W Jackson (yes, *the* Ian Jackson), he would quietly be given the nod to run his private club as a public newsgroup. If so then such arrogance is oh-so-characteristic of him, as is the fact that he's now blaming everyone else, rather than himself, for having got his prediction so spectacularly and humiliatingly wrong.

I just hope we're going to see Rob Firing Dickheads soon.