Nuxx:33aba6b7-c45e-48ca-abd8-07e7c28ce72f@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID: <33aba6b7-c45e-48ca-abd8-07e7c28ce72f@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:04:40 -0700 (PDT) References:       <1017561f-1559-4a73-91f1-1083ed5d0ca9@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <7Hc2m.49481$OO7.46260@text.news.virginmedia.com> <1b9j459vgerm3v76cag40gofmkprmgc6sa@4ax.com> Lines: 39 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.153.43.239 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246392280 32670 127.0.0.1 (30 Jun 2009 20:04:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:04:40 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.153.43.239; posting-account=7_6kYAkAAABD6HrjM0VxehwvZOKMxm4g User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.0.11) Gecko/2009060215 Firefox/3.0.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Bytes: 3768 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:54761 uk.rec.cycling:6197

On Jun 30, 6:41=A0am, Tom Crispin  wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:07:31 GMT, "The Happy Hippy" > >  wrote: > >I cannot help but feel that what's wanted by some is for u.r.c.m to be > >approved and created, then the mods and accepted posters to the group ca= n do > >as they damn well please, sod what was voted on. > > That is a real danger.

By "danger" did you mean "racing certainty"?

I was pretty convinced when this idea was first put on the table that it was a brazen exercise in censorship of those with points of view that some didn't like, because they couldn't refute them but they didn't want them to be true. But the evasiveness that we've had from the would-be "moderators", the biased selection of "moderators" with the "right" opinions, the refusal to be tied down to any burdensome rules, and worst of all the explicit admission that there would be nothing fair about the "moderation" makes it entirely obvious that it is indeed a way of getting rid of those with the "wrong" opinions.

It is entirely obvious that from the very beginning, the "moderators" will be looking for ways of blacklisting Judith, I and others with particular opinions, while keeping the likes of Chapman on the whitelist no matter what they do. It's going to be a private member's club for those with the "right" points of view. While there's nothing wrong with that idea in itself, there's a *lot* wrong with proposing to have that club as a uk.* newsgroup, and pretending that the "moderation" will be even-handed and for reasons such as "keeping it polite", "keeping it on-topic" etc. That is no more or less than a fucking dirty lie, and is absolutely typical of the fact that the URC regulars think nothing whatsoever of employing subterfuge as much as it takes to get what they want.

How dare they deceive people and waste people's time in this manner? What will it take for them to stop this nonsense?