Nuxx:A1e3537e-8429-437b-b94e-56cefac7577e@o6g2000yqj.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!o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Message-ID:  From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config,uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: create moderated newsgroup uk.rec.cycling.moderated Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 02:37:54 -0700 (PDT) References:  <31ca6efe-3fa3-4a1a-9514-0604f7c18709@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <80h*vIZKs@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>      Lines: 26 Organization: http://groups.google.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.132.160.236 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246700275 7504 127.0.0.1 (4 Jul 2009 09:37:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 09:37:55 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com; posting-host=81.132.160.236; 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: 2970 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.net.news.config:55399 uk.rec.cycling:6674

On Jul 4, 10:17=A0am, Tom Crispin  wrote: > > I have no evidence that the discussion has gone on behind closed > doors, but as Ian Jackson sent me a private email asking me for my > opinion, away from this message board, I expect it is the case that > the group is being shaped away from the RFD. =A0I refused to engage in a > conversation with Ian away from this message board, saying that > anything I had to say I would be prepared to say in public.

This tells us all we need to know about the real motives of Jackson and co. They're trying to pull a fast one on everyone by pretending they want a moderated group, when all the time they're secretly discussing just how they're going to make sure that the "trolls" (those with the wrong opinions) are censored.

If that's *not* the case, and they don't have a hidden agenda, why is it necessary for *any* discussion to go on behind closed doors, rather than in public threads?

I urge anyone who is decent, honest and principled to vote against the proposal based on the above. We are clearly being deceived to one degree or another, and if the "moderators" are already treating it like "us and them" with their private discussions before URCM has even started, think how much worse it'll be once it's all off the ground. Let's nip it in the bud before it's too late.